How To Lose A Job In 10 Words Or Less

A single sentence can change a career. We open with a real-world case: a shuttle driver on SFU property tells a flagger she’s “unbelievably beautiful” and suggests modelling. Security documents the exchange, the university issues a campus ban, and the employer fires him. He then pushes for the complainant’s identity under FOIPPA, arguing that the decision-makers needed complete, accurate information. We walk through why FOIPPA binds public bodies but not private companies, how section 28 actually works, and why the court said disclosure wasn’t required when the driver admitted the key facts. Plus, we flag the sting in the tail: special costs when you sue the wrong parties.

From there, the stakes rise. Mid-trial in Vancouver, a mother asks to relocate her eight-year-old to Thailand. The judge says no on best-interests grounds. She leaves anyway, hides her location, and starts a case abroad. We explain how habitual residence anchors jurisdiction, why the Hague Convention exists to stop jurisdiction shopping, and how credibility findings—false affidavits, financial misstatements—reshape custody, support, and costs. The practical takeaway is stark: unilateral moves during active proceedings invite severe legal consequences and can fracture future parenting arrangements.

We close with the Lytton wildfire class action. Plaintiffs allege a passing train ignited the fire; the defendants point to onboard video, sensors, and clean inspection data. The court certifies the case, clarifying that the standard is some basis in fact, not proof. Timing, location near the tracks, tinderbox conditions, and a supportive expert opinion clear the threshold. Certification doesn’t decide liability—it ensures a fair, efficient path to test common issues, expert evidence, and causation at trial.

If you value clear, no-spin explanations of how law affects real people—from campus discipline and privacy to cross-border parenting and community-scale claims—follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us which case challenged your assumptions.

 

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.

 

Legally Speaking  Dec.  4 2025

Adam Stirling [00:00:00] It’s time for our regular segment, joined as always by Barrister and solicitor with Mulligan Defence Lawyers. It’s legally speaking on CFAX 1070 with Michael Mulligan. Afternoon, Michael. How are we doing?

Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:10] Hey, good afternoon. I’m doing great. Always good to be here.

Adam Stirling [00:00:13] Some interesting items on the agenda this week. I’m reading here. It says bus driver banned from SFU and lost job for telling a flagger that she was,”unbelievably beautiful”.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:25] Well, there’s the sign of the times, isn’t it?

Adam Stirling [00:00:27] I ,I don’t know. There has to be more I think, but I don’t know.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:31] Well, there’s not much well, there’s some legally more to it. But the background, this is from 2024. And the fellow involved in this thing was a shuttle bus driver. And he was a shuttle bus driver. He didn’t work directly for Simon Fraser University. He worked for a company that I guess was hired to do shuttle bus driving at or for Simon Fraser University. And on the fateful day back in April of 2024, this fellow was driving his shuttle bus on the Simon Fraser University property, and he spotted, rainy day, he spotted a flagger who was a woman, and he stopped his shuttle bus, opened the door, and told told her words to the effect that she was unbelievably beautiful and that she should consider having photographs taken and doing modelling. And he indicated she smiled in response to that, and he drove away in his shuttle bus. Well, that wasn’t the end of it. The flagger made a complaint about the comment made by the shuttle bus driver, and that prompted I must say there’s lots of security at Simon Fraser University, apparently, because security staff were dispatched to the scene of the unbelievably beautiful comment and arrived there within half an hour of the incident, took a statement from her, and then even took information from another witness about what transpired. I must say it’s hard to imagine perhaps that kind of a legal response or investigation for perhaps some matters going on in the city of Victoria. And the security staff then produced a report to Simon Fraser University about this comment. And that led to Simon Fraser contacting the bus company. And the net result of all of that was eventually Simon Fraser University banned him from coming on the campus. The bus company ultimately wound up firing him. And so, so much for the bus driver. And he then brought various applications. First thing he tried to do was he made application to try to get information about who was this person, who did she work for, to I guess more information about what the nature of the complaint was that led to his eventual termination. And that wasn’t provided. Simon Fraser University refused to provide information about the identity of the person or her employer. And that led eventually to this case that just got decided, which was as that which was an application for a judicial review of the decision not to tell him who the person was that made the complaint. And he had made several arguments in his court application here. Unfortunately for him, it’s clear that he didn’t get legal advice, and he furthermore ignored some of the sort of preliminary advice he got from lawyers acting for some of the various people that he was suing. And one of the challenges was in addition to bringing this claim against Simon Fraser University under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and in particular, there’s a section in that, section 28, that requires where there an individual’s personal information is in the custody or control of a public body, and that’s important, and the personal information is to be used in decision making that affects that individual, the public body must make every reasonable effort to ensure that the personal information is accurate and complete. Okay. And so his argument was, well, hold on, I should have been told who this person was in more detail so that I could make sure that the information was complete when making decisions about banning him from Simon Fraser University ultimately leading to his firing. Now, one of the challenges he had in this court application, and this is, I think understandable, and the judge to in some to some degree understood the challenge here, in addition to bringing this claim about that, he also named various individuals, personally, who worked at Simon Fraser University, who had made that decision not to provide the information.

Adam Stirling [00:04:56] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:04:57] And that part I think the judge found to be sort of understandable in the sense that there was a letter written to Simon Fraser University saying these are the individuals who made this decision. And so he thought, I guess well I better include those in my list of people that I’m suing here.

Adam Stirling [00:05:11] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:05:12] But he also went on to make a claim against the bus company, asking, indicating that they had some obligation to do these things. Now, the problem with that, and people should, listeners should know this, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies only to public bodies. It does not apply to either individuals or private companies. The bus company doesn’t have any obligation to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. And that was pointed out to the former bus driver by the lawyers who were acting for the bus company, but he just didn’t take that, I guess seriously and didn’t follow their advice that he should get some legal advice about whether he should continue a claim against the bus company alleging a breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That then in this case led to not only that claim against the bus company being dismissed but also led to an award of special costs against the bus driver on the basis that he was reckless, to an indifferent to the deficiencies of what he was asking for. And so that’s going to produce a bill for this fellow. Then with respect to the substance of it, the court, given the nature of what was being claimed here, didn’t have the authority to address, for example, the firing, right? Or the reasonableness of any of that. It found that really the only thing it could properly deal with was whether the university was in compliance with that section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. And in that regard, at least, the court concluded that at the end of the day, the information about who the flaggers name or what company she worked for really wasn’t, there wasn’t really a substantive problem or issue, because the bus driver basically agreed that what was alleged occurred.

Adam Stirling [00:07:11] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:07:11] He was clear that he said she he from his perspective, he says he told her that she was beautiful and should be taking pictures or modelling. He said that he thought he did nothing wrong saying those things, and then in fact in his interview he said, this is not Russia, I have a right to free speech, he can say whatever he wanted.

Adam Stirling [00:07:28] ahh.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:07:28] And so it wasn’t a circumstance where there was a disagreement about what was said. That may have produced a different result, but he said, look, you know, this person’s claim is completely wrong. I didn’t tell her she was beautiful; I told her she was doing a great job flagging or something.

Adam Stirling [00:07:42] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:07:42] Then, you know, maybe there would have been more traction to the issue of I need to know who she is. I need to correct this. I’m getting banned and fired over something who didn’t happen. And so as a result of all that he was unsuccessful in his application, both on the basis that he was bringing it against people that didn’t have to do what he was asking, and for the university on the basis that you know it didn’t really make a difference here. There really, there wasn’t any disagreement about what he said. And so that’s the latest out of the BC Supreme Court on how the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act work. And I suppose a cautionary tale for people that might be making this sort of a comment, you know, you certainly would have a right to free speech, but you might also find yourself banned or fired in 2024 or 2025 for saying those things, despite his explanation saying, look, I have right to say these things and I was trying to just brighten her day and she seemed to smile and not be unhappy about it. But they resulted in a complaint and the security services over there and a report and that was the end of them. So that’s the that’s a background on the former bus driver that used to work at Simon Fraser University. No more.

Adam Stirling [00:08:56] Wow. All right. Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan from Mulligan Defence Lawyers will continue right after this.

[00:09:02] COMMERCIAL.

Adam Stirling [00:09:02] Legally Speaking continues on CFAX 1070 with Michael Mulligan from Mulligan Defence Lawyers. Michael, next on the agenda, it says absconding to Thailand with an eight-year-old child in the middle of a family court trial is not a good strategy. What happened?

Michael T. Mulligan [00:09:18] Well, the case involved an eight-year-old child that was a product of a relationship between a couple who lived in Vancouver and their relationship ultimately broke down. And the mother of the child was bringing a family court case, several years after the relationship broke down, asking for a whole bunch of things, including back child support, child support going forward, division of property, and then also as part of the this trial which went on much longer than it had been estimated to take, she made an application to move to Thailand with the child. And the trial was not going to conclude and would have to be adjourned over the summer to finish. And the judge considered this interim application to allow her to move to Thailand and denied it. And ultimately those are of course tough decisions in terms of one party wanting to move somewhere. The assessment is always at the end of the day the best interests of the child, right?

Adam Stirling [00:10:26] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:10:26] And she wanted to move there, I think to commence a new relationship with somebody else, but the judge concluded that it just wasn’t in the child’s interest to do that. He was already missing school and so on and not a not a wise idea. So that was the order, which she then just promptly ignored. And left with the child contrary to the court order and is in Thailand and refusing to indicate where in Thailand and then only allowing brief contacts with the father by telephone, and wrote to the court, I guess saying I’m not coming back and also started a parallel court application in Thailand. She was not, I guess, not doing well in Vancouver. And so there’s several things bound up in that. The first thing to be aware of is that there are some international conventions that some countries have signed on to dealing with this sort of thing, you know one parent or taking a child to another jurisdiction. And there’s I think referred to as the Hague Convention and hopefully this will be of some assistance to the father because Thailand happens to be a signatory to the Hague Convention and has passed domestic legislation in Thailand to implement it. And one of the core principles there, is that it’s not appropriate without permission to be taking a child away from where they are “habitually resident”.

Adam Stirling [00:11:59] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:11:59] And that also deals with the issue of sort of well where you know what court should be making these decisions, right? You can’t just be halfway through your family court trial in Vancouver and.

Adam Stirling [00:12:10] Oh sorry my bad I hit the wrong button.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:12:13] Oh love it… You can’t be halfway through your family court trial in Vancouver realise, you know, it’s not looking too good for you, and indeed it wasn’t for the mother here. The judge found that she had on multiple occasions filed false affidavits, had provided misleading information about her financial circumstances, had made false, false claims of being physically assaulted, all of which the judge rejected as not true, and so things were going badly for her. You can’t just pick up, run off to another jurisdiction, and try again there, okay. And so when the woman took off,  no doubt ended the relationship with the lawyer who was representing her, and eventually the trial concluded, absent the child, and the mother. And the judge in the case effectively found on all counts against the mother, found that she was uncredible, didn’t accept what she had to say, found the child’s best interest would be to have the father with sole custody, found that her claim for back child support had no merit, that she was not deserving of child support going forward on the basis of her conduct and what she had done, that the child’s best interest was being put in the back seat as a result of what had occurred. And so on all respects has found against the mother and ordered that the child be returned to the father to reside in Vancouver where the child had been habitually resident the child’s entire life. What we now have to wait and see, of course, is what happens. Because the mother has made this parallel application, like started up in Thailand, and the father, in addition to having spent a$150,000 on legal expenses here, has now into some $40,000 in legal expenses in Thailand. Now the judge here has ordered costs on the basis of her actual his actual cost awarded against the mother. But what we’ll now have to wait and see is whether the court in Thailand does what you would expect under the Hague Convention, which would be to find that this child was habitually resident in Vancouver, not in Thailand, and refuse jurisdiction and order the child be returned. So it’s not over, but certainly a serious problem for the father having lost all contact with the child other than these brief telephone conversations. And so that’s the Hague Convention and why it’s a very, very bad idea to engage in some self-help remedy of taking off to another country halfway through your trial and trying again there. That did not work out, at least in the legal, from a legal perspective, and we’ll have to wait and see what Thailand does with that order.

Adam Stirling [00:15:01] All right, four minutes remain. It says here Lytton Wildfire class action certification against a company on the basis that there is “some basis in fact”. What’s the story?

Michael T. Mulligan [00:15:14] So this is an application to certify a class action, to do with that terrible fire in in Lytton a few years ago. Destroyed the entire town.

Adam Stirling [00:15:24] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:15:25] And the class action alleges that the fire may have been started by a train passing through the town. And when you’re applying to certify a class action, you first of all have some representative plaintiffs, you would sort of set out what the basis of your claim is. But one of the tests for whether a judge is to certify a class action is exactly that language. Is there some basis in fact for the claim that you are making? And as we’ve talked about before, much of the litigation surrounding class actions involves fighting over whether the case should get certified as a class action. And great effort is often made by defendants who are being sued to prevent that from happening. And so that language, some basis in fact, has been the subject of lots of litigation. Well, what does that mean? How clear does that have to be? What kind of evidence do you need to have? And the judge in this case was trying to provide some clarity about what exactly does that mean. How, you know, how clear does the evidence have to be? And the judge in that respect, and this is another reason why this is I think an interesting decision, at least as I read it, many court decisions you read will be completely text.? You’ll have sort of descriptions of things, par numbered paragraphs and so on.

Adam Stirling [00:16:50] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:16:51] But in this case, and this is also an interesting thing to know about, it’s clear that the train companies involved have all kinds of things like videos and sensors and pictures and things on their trains. And so here there were a whole bunch of things like sort of maps and live pictures of like this was a train carrying coal, basically.

Adam Stirling [00:17:15] mmhmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:17:16] And the judge has included many of those in the reasons for judgement on this certification decision, which I think is a positive thing, right? It makes it sort of clear to somebody rather than describing, you know, what the picture of the train looked like, just well there it is, just paste it into the judgement. And so we’ve got interestingly all of these pictures taken right at the time and in the city and what it all looked like. And the basis for the suggestion that the fire might have been caused by the train rested on I guess a couple of things. One would be timing. It seems like common ground that this train went through the town you know about ten minutes or so prior to anyone noticing, like smoke and the fire starting. And the fire was certainly near the train tracks, right? That seems clear as well. That’s when, that’s where it was first noted. But on the other hand, when you look at these pictures, well there’s no fire. There’s no sparks, no fire, and there’s a bunch of other information that the train company obviously keeps as well. Including things like they have sensors to determine is something dragging from the train. There was not. And there’s also things like careful temperature records. There, I must say it’s one of the hottest days ever recorded.

Adam Stirling [00:18:37] YEah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:37] If you recall the background of this bad fire. You know, a couple of days before there was 46 degrees, 46.1 Degrees breaking all records the next day, the day before the fire, it was 49.6 degrees.

Adam Stirling [00:18:49] Wow

Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:49] With humidity dropped to 8%. And so it was just a tinderbox when the train went through the town. But again, when you look at the pictures and video and so on, it does not show any signs of fire, smoke, obstructions on the track or anything else unusual as the train rolls through. You just do have the fact that the fire was on either side of the train track, and it was only a few minutes after the train went through. That’s also true. The train data included things like when the brakes are applied and there was no unusual breaking, no acceleration or deceleration. There was no other nothing else unusual, no defects on the train, it’s all been inspected. It’s just that,  and so you had, in the course of the certification application, evidence from experts on both sides. One expert suggesting that it could have been the train that started the fire, the other expert suggesting no, no, that doesn’t they don’t think that’s what would have happened here on the basis of, you know, that data about the other pictures and the train all those things, right?

Adam Stirling [00:19:54] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:19:54] And so you had this sort of battle of experts about whether that caused the fire or not. But ultimately, and the judge was trying to point out that look, there should be some effort to expedite these things, so there’s not quite so much time spent litigating whether a thing should be classified, certified to go as a class action, and pointed out that some basis in fact does not mean certainly. It just means that there’s a basis, you know, it that’s why we have trials, right, to have those experts testify and be cross examined and look at it and you know, a judge will have to make a decision about whether that’s been proven on a balance of probabilities. Some basis in fact is made out by, you know, that circumstantial evidence. There’s an expert that says that could have been the cause of it, and that’s enough to go forward. And so the net result is that it has been certified, and we will have eventually a.

Adam Stirling [00:20:44] Wow.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:20:44] Trial about whether this proven the train caused it. So that’s the latest from class actions and that terrible fire.

Adam Stirling [00:20:50] All right, we’re all out of time. We have to run Legally Speaking on CFAX 1070 during the second half of our second hour every Thursday. We’ll be right back.

Automatically Transcribed on December 8, 2025 – MULLIGAN DEFENCE LAWYERS