Trump Tariff Legal Response, Lottery Litigation & Fake Nurse Sentenced

 

Unlock the hidden power of intellectual property in global trade as we explore Canada’s strategic maneuvers against US policies. Instead of traditional tariffs, imagine the impact of restricting US intellectual property rights on Canadian soil. Get ready to dissect a thrilling legal case over a $2 million lottery ticket—is it a solo jackpot or a group windfall? We unravel the details, from the tangled web of evidence to the burden of proof that could make or break the case.

But the intrigue doesn’t stop there. Brace yourself for the shocking story of a woman masquerading as a nurse in British Columbia, jeopardizing public trust with her deceitful actions. We’ll navigate the legal complexities of her sentencing and the broader implications for the healthcare system. Plus, Michael Mulligan from Mulligan Defense Lawyers joins us to shed light on a school embroiled in a legal battle over a weed gummy incident, offering insights into the delicate handling of the situation. This episode promises a gripping journey through the multifaceted world of law and its profound consequences.

 

Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 10:30 a.m. It’s also available on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Legally Speaking Jan 16 2024

Adam Stirling [00:00:00] It’s time for our regular segment, joined, as always by Barrister and Solicitor with Mulligan Defence Lawyers. Morning Michael Mulligan with Legally Speaking, how are you doing?

Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:08] Hey, Good morning. I’m doing great. Always good to be here.

Adam Stirling [00:00:10] And before we get underway today, I just wanted to pass on I’d been getting a lot of good feedback about those ideas that you broached in terms of potential of retaliatory tariffs or actions that Canada could take with respect to intellectual property. I saw you have that post up on X that’s making the rounds, getting lots of great feedback. So, I wanted to say thank you for that again.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:00:29] So that’s good. I hope the people making decisions about that are listening. So, I don’t think we’re bringing the U.S. to its knees by putting tariffs on orange juice or trying to cut off our maple syrup deliveries or something. Whereas restricting U.S. intellectual property rights in Canada would be just completely devastating to them. And it also formed one of the core tenets of the free trade agreements we’ve had with the U.S. over the years, that’s actually part of the agreement that we reached with them to increase U.S. patent protections in Canada. And if they are going to repudiate the deal with us, that seems like a completely natural response to, at the very least, return things to where they were or go further in that direction. And I do think if those if that approach is taken, you’re going to immediately snap to attention huge parts of the U.S. economy that are desperately reliant on other countries enforcing U.S. patents and intellectual property rights that are going to put great pressure on the U.S. administration to end that less their businesses be worth literally nothing. You’d be able to, you know, erect your own Trump Tower if you wish, or make yourself a Tesla if you so choose. And you could just imagine how unpopular those things might be. So, it seems like an excellent lever for Canada or other small countries to pull. And of course, it’s a lever which has literally worked with the U.S. on more than one occasion to devastating effect. So hopefully the people in charge of making those decisions are listening carefully and they don’t think we’re going to get there dealing with orange juice or maple syrup.

Adam Stirling [00:02:06] Indeed, for the moment, though, you and I, as we dive into today’s agenda, up first, perhaps appropriately, a $2 million lottery win. Was it a group ticket or not?

Michael T. Mulligan [00:02:17] Yeah, this is I think this is just a great case, as as Judge points out ordinarily, a lottery win would be a very happy event. And this was a big lottery win. This was a fellow who worked at a warehouse in the Lower Mainland who was a short haul trucker. And the BC49 ticket came into the tune of $2 million. That would ordinarily be a very, very happy event. Instead, it wound up in litigation, and the litigation ensued because of a disagreement with the other people he worked with there about whether the ticket was purchased as a group ticket or whether he purchased it himself. And so, it’s a really interesting case in that regard. The evidence came out, there was indeed a group of people who worked in the warehouse who would from time-to-time purchase group lottery tickets and pool their money to do so. How exactly that worked, the evidence differed. There was, as I guess with many of these things, no written agreement kept and the process and what happened was irregular and varied from time to time. And so, the case really turned on, you know, have the other people who worked in the warehouse who are alleging that they all deserve a share of the $2 million, have they established that this was a group purchased ticket? And when you sue somebody, the person or people doing the suing have the burden of proof. Unlike in a criminal case, we’ve got to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt; in a civil case when you’re suing for money, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, but the burden of proof remains on the people that are making the claim to try to establish that what they’re claiming happened, at least probably.

Adam Stirling [00:03:59] Yes.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:04:00] And in this case, there was evidence, and everyone agreed that there was this group of five people who did from time-to-time pool their money to buy tickets. The people doing the suing, the other people who allege that this ticket was a group ticket became suspicious, in part because after the $2 million win, the fellow who bought the ticket didn’t tell anyone else about the win. They found out what I guess there’s a picture of him with one of those comically oversized cheques, you know, on the PC lottery website or whatnot. Right.

Adam Stirling [00:04:32] Interesting.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:04:32] And so they became suspicious. Hey, why didn’t he tell us? And the judge found that they may well have legitimately thought that they had an interest in a portion of the money. Now, part of the challenge here was what happened with this group of people was completely irregular and generally undocumented. Sometimes some person would buy tickets. Other times another person of the group would buy tickets. There was nobody clearly defined who would do it. There were, however, records of this group WhatsApp Messaging group where there were photos circulated on a number of occasions showing the lottery tickets that were purchased in common. And there were 16 photos of that kind. Now, the people doing the suing, the other warehouse workers claimed that, well, this was a regular thing. It occurred all the time. It was $50. Different people would buy it. You could if you didn’t have your money right away, somebody else would cover for you to put it in. Now, the other the all the people doing the suing also agreed that the winner, the guy who bought the ticket, also had a habit of personally buying lottery tickets. So that was a confounding factor. Now, some of the interesting evidence included that on the, at the time the lottery ticket was purchased, it was purchased from a Chevron station. There were records from B.C. Lottery Corporation showing that within the one minute the ticket was sold, a total of only $12 in tickets were purchased and that’s it and the debit card of the man who purchased it spent $10 at the Chevron at exactly that time. That was important because that’s not $50.

Adam Stirling [00:06:03] no.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:06:04] Right. And so there would be some evidence. Well, this wasn’t a group purchase. It’s only ten bucks and there were no pictures of the ticket, or this ticket sent out. The other problem for the group who were doing the suing is that evidence from the person who claimed that he had collected money from the others and given it to the man who bought the ticket just kept changing every time he was asked about it. The first time he swore an affidavit about it saying that he gave the money to the ticket purchaser at a meeting that morning. Then he later found out that the fellow wasn’t at that meeting. So, then he changed to, changed his story to well, he gave the money after the meeting, but then it changed again to have been given to some other occasion. And ultimately, the judge found that that person’s evidence was just unreliable. And the reasons that he gave for these ever-shifting versions of events included a claim that he was feeling pressured to act quickly and his other explanation for the changing of claims was that his father was diagnosed with a serious illness. And the judge didn’t find that any of those things alleviated his concerns about this changing version of events. And at the end of the day, bearing in mind what he said at the outset, when you’re suing somebody, you’ve got the burden of proving it. Right.

Adam Stirling [00:07:20] yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:07:20] And ultimately, the judge concluded that, look, just that shifting evidence about how this money might have been passed along was just not reliable. It couldn’t be relied upon. And really, the history of what was going on here was all over the place. Sometimes one person would buy tickets, sometimes another person would buy tickets. There was no consistent pattern. That, combined with the fact that the amount of tickets purchased didn’t correspond with any routine amount of ten bucks or $12, it was a little hard to figure out why the two amounts didn’t quite line up, but it certainly wasn’t $50, given all of that. The judge concluded that even though the people may have been suspicious because the fellow who won didn’t tell them about it and they may have been legitimately have a suspicion. Suspicion is not enough. And just on that fact pattern, with no agreement, no photographs, no clear evidence about money being given, it just wasn’t enough to establish on a balance of probabilities that this ticket was purchased by this man or the group, or that he had somehow failed to purchase group tickets. So that was the other claim. But, you know, if he didn’t, the money wasn’t used to purchase that. He had failed to do it. It just wasn’t clear and didn’t or it didn’t get up to the level of probably. And so, I guess at the end of the day, the short haul truck driver keeps the $2 million and the other people are presumably still working at the warehouse. So that’s the end of the million-dollar lottery ticket win. And what you need to do if you want to prove that you deserve a share of the prize.

Adam Stirling [00:08:47] Michael Mulligan with Mulligan Defence Lawyers, Legally Speaking, will continue right after this.

[00:08:52] COMMERCIAL.

Adam Stirling [00:08:52] Legally Speaking, as we continue on CFAX 10170. Michael Mulligan Mulligan Defence Lawyers Michael, onto our next story, a seven-year jail sentence for repeatedly pretending to be a nurse, including in Victoria.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:09:05] This is a bad case. So, the profile of the person in this case. She was 52 years of age at the time of sentencing, just sentenced recently. And she’s somebody who had 67 prior convictions as an adult for crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, including 18 fraud convictions. She was released on parole and came to B.C., while on parole, and then swiftly resumed her fraudulent activity. The fraudulent activity, most unfortunately, involved in many instances using the identity of another person who was, in fact, a nurse to gain employment. She started that by actually getting employment here at, employment in B.C., at least at a dental office, not originally doing nursing, but at the dental offices. She defrauded the dentist of $8,000 signing, stealing, and signing cheques. But she moved on again, using this fake identity of a real nurse who was on leave at the time. And she created various forged documents and forged credentials, in some cases allowing when things were checked people to check the like they will end up speaking to the real person. But this wasn’t the real person applying for the job. Somebody who was, in fact, on leave. And in other cases, she just modified the emails and telephone numbers. And when people were checking information, she was responding, saying what a wonderful nurse she was. And so by that process, she wound up getting various nursing positions, some of which were concurrent, including at the Vancouver Women’s Hospital, where she was, in fact, working for some period of time as a nurse, doing various things, including working and dealing with patients who were coming out of anaesthetic, giving them pain medication, fentanyl and other things.

Adam Stirling [00:10:58] yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:10:58] All apparently as directed by doctors. She also wound up getting employment in Victoria at a private surgery centre in Victoria while she was still employed by the B.C. Women’s Hospital. And so, all of this eventually unwound in part because of what appears to be, was described as I must say, with some amusement, a lack of professionalism, given, of course, she wasn’t a professional for poor nursing skills, probably because she wasn’t a nurse and her bedside manner. And so there were various complaints and friction and so on in her efforts doing these things that eventually led all of this to unwind. And the charges she wound up, she wound up with charges and she’d also engaged in similar conduct in Ontario. She wound up being convicted in first in Ontario and was sentenced to seven years in prison for similar using this fake identity to work as a nurse and then she wound up with this  series of charges in British Columbia, including the ones from Vancouver, the B.C. Women’s Hospital there, and the dentist’s office and the the private surgery centre in Victoria. And all of this then led to, well, how was she to be sentenced? Right. And one of the things which was an issue there is whether the sort of how the judges to come to the total number of years to sentence this woman to. I should say, as well the sentencing process is clear from the decision was confounded by virtue of the fact that the woman is obviously, just as you might have gathered from the description, a complete and pathological liar.

Adam Stirling [00:12:41] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:12:41] And so various representations and things that she would claim were just not true.

Adam Stirling [00:12:45] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:12:46] Like things like, you know, when she would get arrested, she’d say, I’m going to pick up my granddaughter. Well, there was no granddaughter right at the various sentencing, Oh I had nursing training for two years, but then previously claimed it was a different length of time. The judge found just nothing that could be relied on anything virtually, she was saying. She said during a pre-sentence report she was one to resume hairdressing with her best friend in the context of the best friend who said, well, he met her in a minimum security prison and there was very little contact with her and no idea where she is or what’s going on.

Adam Stirling [00:13:14] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:13:14] So virtually everything out of her mouth is just completely false.

Adam Stirling [00:13:17] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:13:19] So a terrible fact pattern and dangerous, as the judge pointed out. While, you know, generally people weren’t physically harmed by what she was doing, although it sounds like there were some botched efforts to insert needles and so on. Many of the people involved in it are naturally, of course, very upset and terrified and so on. And so, you now have a lack of faith in, you know, the medical system is that person a nurse is that person a doctor. You just imagine what that would feel like if you found out that, well, you’re under anaesthetic. Some fraud artist from Ontario was injecting you with fentanyl. You can imagine that being a pretty upsetting fact pattern and indeed it was for many of the people. But the judge had to deal with this issue of whether the sentences for this or all these offences right through to various she’d be charged with things like inpersonation, like pretending to be the real nurse, uttering forged documents like making up fake things to get these jobs. She was also a trustee charged with assault with a weapon. The assault with a weapon, was the injecting people with a needle. And the theory there is that the people did not implicitly consent to a non-nurse injecting them with things.

Adam Stirling [00:14:24] yep.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:14:24] And so that was an assault.

Adam Stirling [00:14:25] yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:14:27] But one of the issues is when you’re sentencing somebody for all this litany of things, should the judge impose a like a sentence for each one of those things separately and add them all up? That would be sentences which would be consecutive, like, should you say, okay, well, how much of a sentence for that injection with the needle when you weren’t a nurse? Should that be, should we add five months for that? And then we had another five months on for using that forged document and add it all up? Or should the judge be imposing concurrent sentences like sentences run at the same time? And one of the considerations there is really sort of whether the starting point would be, are you dealing with sort of one illegal act that has various crimes associated with it? Like, let’s say, for example, somebody is charged with robbery of a bank, and they’re also charged with having an unregistered firearm and also driving dangerously as they sped away from the bank and also assault for pushing down the security guard. Right.

Adam Stirling [00:15:25] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:15:25] You might say. Well, those weren’t a bunch of discrete things that we should just give small sentences to each one and add them up. The approach generally taken there will be to impose concurrent sentences to figure out what is the total appropriate sentence for all this illegal stuff, because really it’s all one big transaction; pushing on the security guard you shouldn’t have the gun, you’re rob the bank and you drove too fast to be drove away. Right. Rather than kind of parsing those over two separate things. The Crown’s argument was, well, these are separate because some were in Victoria, some are in Vancouver, other things happened back in Ontario. The dentist office is different. They occurred on different days. It wasn’t like the bank robbery example. On the other hand, the other approach to it would be, well, no, this was just a fraud or just engaged in this fraud of pretending to be a nurse to get money.

Adam Stirling [00:16:11] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:16:13] This is just one conglomeration of fraud. That’s the approach ultimately the judge took. And it doesn’t necessarily mean that the sentence would be less. And one of the overarching principles that a judge has to consider is this concept of the principle of totality. Like what is the total appropriate sentence for this conduct? You robbed a bank, you drove too fast, you had a gun, you shouldn’t have had, and you shoved the guy down. The total sentence should capture all of that rate rather than just mathematically adding up what might be an appropriate sentence for pushing somebody and what might be an appropriate sentence for driving too fast. You’ve got to take the whole thing into consideration. And so that’s ultimately what the judge did. The judge concluded that there should be sentences which would run concurrently with each other, but the appropriate total penalty here was a sentence of seven years in the penitentiary. And interestingly, that will run concurrently with the Ontario’s seven-year sentence. There’s also what she got there. She had served, it looks like, about four years of the or three years of that sentence and the effect of it. So, the effect of the additional seven years will be four more years from the seven she got in Ontario. So, the net effect of it will be seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 years, right. That’ll be the real effect of it. And so that’s the that’s the ultimate conclusion. And I should say, boy, what a challenging thing to deal with. Doesn’t look like people here were sort of negligent in the sense that people were checking references and so on. Also, the case had a devastating impact on the real nurse, the real nurse involved in all of this, because her effective reputation was so damaged because now, she’s been identified as this person who’s a fraud artist, basically.

Adam Stirling [00:18:01] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:02] She’s had to change her name because the name her real name was so sullied by the activity of this woman that she couldn’t carry on with it. So, it had a real impact on her as well. So just a tale, a trail of destruction by this person. And I must say, for some of us in the criminal justice system, sometimes these fraud cases are really challenging to deal with as it became apparent here, because virtually everything all of this person’s mouth was untrue. Right. Her background, her friends, what she did, everything.

Adam Stirling [00:18:37] yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:18:38] Completely untrue. And so, it can be very challenging to sort out, you know, how that person is to be dealt with. But I guess we can all have some confidence that at least for a number of years, seven, seven years, she’s going to be either in a federal penitentiary or if she gets out on parole, on parole, no doubt her desire to get out on parole is going to be impacted by virtue of the fact that she was on parole at the time she committed many of these offences. And so.

Adam Stirling [00:19:03] Yeah.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:19:04] She will find yourself spending a very good portion of that seven years in prison. And so at least the public will be protected for that length of time against her. Giving you an injection of your cumulative anaesthetic at the hospital. So that’s the latest sentencing for the fake nurse.

Adam Stirling [00:19:19] Three minutes left. Litigation over weed, gummies, and email messages.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:19:25] This would make me smile. This is a case sort of the Westshore. The fact pattern is very unfortunate. It was a group of kids going on a trip to the forest for a school and apparently the grade 8 kids and apparently one of them brought some what was described as weed gummies and gave them to some other classmates who ate them. Teachers found out about it. There was ultimately there is dispute about whether the weed gummies, quote unquote, were weed gummies containing CBD or THC. THC being like the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

Adam Stirling [00:20:03] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:20:04] CBD apparently being something that some people give to like their pets and eat for other medical reasons. And so there are different things. The litigation stems from the fact that the school sent a bunch of emails to all of the parents claiming that these kids were involved with, “prohibited substances”, which may or may not have been accurate depending on what in fact was in these gummies. One of the kids wound up being expelled. Two others wound up being disciplined. And the family, on behalf of the kid who was expelled, who apparently received and ate one of the weed gummies, whatever that might actually have been, is suing the school for things, including defamation.

Adam Stirling [00:20:47] hmm.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:20:47] Claiming that these email messages sent out to all the parents alleging that he’d been involved with, “prohibited substances” was damaging to his reputation. Presumably, that turns on whether these things contained CBD or THC and whether, in fact, they were prohibited. All of this is now leading to litigation, long examinations for discoveries. And the most the current part of it, decision that came out was a decision seeking to order the school to provide the names, contact information for all of the parents that they emailed on these various occasions making these claims. The school didn’t want to provide that. They resisted it. So off it went to sort of a chamber’s application. Ultimately, the school’s been ordered to do that. The entire thing I must say as I read it, it caused me to sort of smile at the weed gummies grade 8, student problem. But as the judge who made this decision pointed out, you know, really encouraging that the parties tried to avoid unnecessary chambers applications and so on, but that we’ve turned to, you know, some grade 8 students eating some gummies that may or may not have contained THC in them into a circumstance where one of them has been expelled, emails have been sent out all about them, and now they’re involved in lengthy and complicated litigation in the Supreme Court, all of which is extremely unfortunate. You would have hoped that back when the weed gummy incident got detected, there might have been a more sensitive way to deal with it than there was. But there we are. And we will continue to, I guess, watch what happens with the litigation between the school and the former grade 8 student who may or may not have eaten the weed gummy. So that’s lead us.

Adam Stirling [00:22:26] To that Michael Mulligan with Mulligan Defence Lawyers. Legally Speaking, during the second half of our second hour every Thursday on the show. Michael, thank you. Pleasure, as always.

Michael T. Mulligan [00:22:35] Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Adam Stirling [00:22:36] All right. You, too.

Automatically Transcribed on Jan 16, 2024 – MULLIGAN DEFENCE LAWYERS