Carr's Landing

Joe Rich Community


Kelowna Capital News

Kelowna Daily Courier

Penticton Herald

Penticton Western

Summerland Review


Vernon Morning Star

Vernon Daily Courier

Bennett Bridge Cam

Interior Highway Cams

Kelowna Airport

Regional District of Central Okanagan

RDCO's Facebook

Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen

District of Lake Country

District of Peachland

City of Penticton

District of Summerland

City of Vernon

District of West Kelowna


Kelowna's Best Rock

RDCO Board Calender
RDCO Meeting Schedule

RDCO Board Reports

RDCO Board Agenda

RDCO Board Minutes

Gov Service Agenda

Gov Service Minutes

NWCA Minutes

SILGA - Board



For sprinkling and watering days, click here.


Westside Rd. Maps

C.O.W. Links

NW Ratepayers

Edgson News


Westside Rd Interchange

Westside Road Updates


Westside Residents Association

Jobs in Vernon

Jobs in Kelowna

Report Email Spam here.

Report Bad Links Here

Food Action Society





BCGov FOI form

BC Forest Fire Info

BC Wildfires of Note
Sound Cloud

Scan BC

Kelowna Yacht Club Wind Direction/Speed

Follow on Twitter

Follow OkanaganLakeBC on Twitter

okanagan lake directory, waterfront vacation rentals, local businesses, shopping, vernon, kelowna, westbank, westside, winfield, kaleden, oyama, peachland, penticton, summerland, naramata


includes property law

These are some BC laws that affect other BC laws.

Blue Divider Line

Make a comment using the form at the bottom of this page regarding BC Laws.  Your comments will be posted to this website here.

Blue Divider Line

What would it be like if we had only one law and one law only?  As long as your not hurting anyone or anything!  People would understand that one law and not need a lawyer now would they?

Blue Divider Line

"This means that only some people in our society can actually exercise the legal rights that should apply to everyone.”

Blue Divider Line

An Okanagan Legal Blog

Blue Divider Line

Medical marijuana use at work poses challenges for employers: experts - The Canadian Press - September 19, 2015

TORONTO -- As medical marijuana gains traction as a treatment option for a host of conditions including chronic pain and other conditions, Canadian employers could find themselves grappling with a sticky issue.

"Individuals have the right to equal treatment ... without discrimination on the grounds of disability," says Jan Robinson, managing principal at human resources firm Morneau Shepell.

"Medical cannabis now needs to be viewed like every other doctor-prescribed drug."

But although employers have a duty to accommodate workers' medical conditions, experts say that duty must be balanced with the need to keep the workplace safe. That can be challenging, especially if employees perform duties such as operating machinery.

"There's no hard or fast rule to this," says Natalie MacDonald, an employment lawyer and the co-founder of Rudner MacDonald LLP. "It's got to be determined on a case-by-case basis -- as most things in employment law do."

Experts says the duty to accommodate comes with an important caveat -- it must not result in undue hardship for the employer.
While there is no strict definition of what constitutes undue hardship, MacDonald says the courts will consider a number of factors including how much financial difficulty the company would endure and whether accommodating the employee would compromise workplace safety.

"A small organization that has to incur serious financial hardship as a result of trying to accommodate an employee may cross the test of undue hardship," MacDonald said.

A recent decision issued by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal illustrates some of the limits that apply to the employer's responsibility to accommodate workers' needs.

The Tribunal ruled in July that B.C.-based Selkin Logging did not violate John French's human rights by refusing to allow the logging contractor to use marijuana while on the job.

The company, which has a "zero tolerance" policy on marijuana use, had argued that it did not discriminate against French based on his use of cannabis to handle the symptoms of cancer, but rather was concerned about safety.

In addition, French was not authorized by Health Canada to possess medical marijuana, although he claimed he was using the drug to ease cancer-related pain as per his doctors' recommendations, according to court documents.

MacDonald says that if French had proper medical documentation, the outcome of the case may have been different. However, safety concerns still need to be taken into account, she adds.

One alternative way to accommodate a worker's needs would be to provide the worker with a leave of absence until the medical issue is resolved, MacDonald said.
"In some cases, it may be that the employee needs to be provided with alternative forms of work that don't attract any particular safety concerns," MacDonald said.

As cannabis becomes a more popular treatment choice -- Health Canada has estimated there could be nearly half a million users by 2024 -- the issue is likely to start cropping up at workplaces across the country.

"We are starting to recognize that this trend will commence very shortly across Canada," said Robinson, noting that Morneau Shepell has been advising its clients to review their existing drug and alcohol policies to ensure they are adequate.

"If they don't look at their drug policies now, they may have issues in the future," she said.


Blue Divider Line

Hergott: Breast baring limitations not legally clear
By Paul Hergott - Kelowna Capital News - August 15, 2013

Credit for this week’s column topic goes to local Internet phenomenon, Lori Welbourne, who produces an edgy talk radio show every Wednesday night called “On the Rocks” with co-hosts Jason Rock and Stuntman Steve. The show comes with the alluring warning: “On The Rocks contains mature and sexual subject matter, listener discretion is advised”.

One of the Internet headline topics of discussion this week was 19 year old model, Cheyenne Lutek, who tested the limits of New York City’s recently relaxed laws regarding partial nudity by slipping off her blouse in a trendy restaurant. She was escorted out by management, but later posed topless with two New York City police officers who have been directed not to cite topless women for public lewdness or indecent exposure.

To prepare for the show, Lori posted the topic on facebook asking about the legality of baring breasts in Kelowna. I couldn’t resist doing a little research.

What would happen if you were to bare your breasts in public in Kelowna? In 1906, you might have spent time in jail. When looking for by-laws on the subject on the City of Kelowna website I came upon this piece of history: “"1906 - Kelowna City Council passed a bylaw and instructed the presiding Chief of Police, William Brent, to prohibit nude bathing in Okanagan Lake between 6 a.m. – 9 p.m. Skinny-dippers were fined $100 or sentenced to 30 days in jail!"

The only current City of Kelowna by-laws I could find, related to breasts, have to do with the circumference of trees. I was interested to learn that tree circumference is measured at breast height. It’s a defined term: “Circumference at Breast Height” (CBH for short). Imagine that. In the context of women’s breasts, does that strike you as problematic? Is it unrestrained or brassiered breasts, for example?

The municipality of Maple Ridge passed a by-law in 1997 requiring “females over the age of eight (8) years” to “fully cover all portions of their nipples and aureole with opaque apparel”. The by-law was passed in specific response to Linda Meyer’s declaration that she would be baring her breasts in a public leisure centre. Linda disregarded the by-law and was charged. The court hearing the matter declared the by-law void because a municipality does not have jurisdiction to create by-laws that fall within the gamut of criminal law.

Criminal law is an exclusively federal (Canada wide) matter, and is contained within the Criminal Code. Public nudity provisions in the Criminal Code do not specifically name body parts. Instead, offending the Criminal Code requires offending “public decency”. Whether or not public decency is offended depends on what the “community standard of tolerance” is.

Ms. Meyer’s bold assertion that she would go bare-breasted was no doubt inspired by legal developments in Ontario the previous year. A 1996 Ontario Court of Appeal decision found that while most women might choose not to be bare-breasted in public, it is not something that offends the “community standard of tolerance”. The decision resulted in the acquittal of Ms. Gwen Jacob who had been criminally charged and fined $75.00 for removing her shirt.

You might find this odd, but court decisions in other provinces are not automatically binding in British Columbia. They are persuasive, though, particularly when they come from a court of appeal. If I “had a pair” in the female context, I would feel very confident that I could dangle them on the streets of Kelowna without risk of a criminal conviction.

I doubt that this clarification about the law will result in the mass display of women’s nude breasts in Kelowna, but I wonder if it might reduce the frowns of disapproval that seem to crop up when a mother attaches her baby’s mouth to that supposedly offensive part of her anatomy in public?

Blue Divider Line

Changes coming to BC’s Limitation Act

We’re contacting you today to let you know about a new piece of legislation, the Limitation Act, which comes into effect on June 1 and replaces BC’s current Limitation Act, which dates back to 1975.

While this is not a law administered by Consumer Protection BC (it’s administered by the Ministry of Justice), we thought it was important to send you information because the new Act will affect the amount of time a claimant has to initiate a civil lawsuit (for example, this would include a party’s ability to sue on a debt owing).

For basic information about the key changes in the new Limitation Act, please visit the Ministry of Justice website or consult the .pdf icon Ministry of Justice’s Q&A document. If you require further assistance understanding how the new Limitation Act may impact you, you may wish to consider seeking legal advice.


.pdf icon FAQ's

Q: What does the new Limitation Act apply to?

 The new Act will govern how long a person has to bring a civil lawsuit if no other statute contains a specific time period.
 Where another more specific law sets a limitation period, that specific limitation period applies rather than the defaults contained in the new Act. (For example, the Civil Forfeiture Act sets a 10-year limitation period to apply to the court for a forfeiture order.)

Q: What are the key changes in the new Limitation Act?

 Moving from multiple basic limitation periods based on the type of legal action, to a single two-year basic limitation period for all civil claims. Exceptions to this are civil claims that enforce a monetary judgment, exempted claims and actions that have limitation periods set by other statutes. A single basic limitation period simplifies the law, eliminates uncertainty over which limitation period applies and ensures that individuals pursue their legal claims within a reasonable time period after discovering the right to bring an action.
 The two-year basic limitation period will start to run once a plaintiff “discovers” his or her legal claim.
 Moving from a general 30-year ultimate limitation period and six-year medical ultimate limitation period to a single 15-year ultimate limitation period that applies to all claims.
 Changing the commencement of the ultimate limitation period from an “accrual” model to a model that starts the clock running based on an “act or omission.”
 The changes to the duration and commencement of the ultimate limitation period provide significantly more certainty to determining when liability begins and ends.
 Transition rules that explain how the new Act applies to plaintiffs who have pre-existing claims.

Blue Divider Line

*Note* This is only a snippet, please click link below for entire content

Burnaby (City) v. Oh,
2011 BCCA 222
Date: 20110505
Docket: CA038183

[34] The appellant’s other complaint on the issue of trial fairness is that she did not have access to legal assistance. However, there is no general right to state-funded legal aid in either the administrative or civil settings: P.D. v. British Columbia, 2010 BCSC 290 at para. 70.

[35] What has been said in the case authorities on trial fairness and the obligations placed on trial judges when there is an unrepresented litigant is of assistance in considering the appellant’s arguments. In Davids v. Davids, [1999] O.J. No. 3930, 125 O.A.C. 375 at para. 36, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the following under the heading “Was the trial so unfair as to result in a miscarriage of justice?”:

[36] ... The fairness of this trial is not measured by comparing the appellant’s conduct of his own case with the conduct of that case by a competent lawyer. If that were the measure of fairness, trial judges could only require persons to proceed to trial without counsel in those rare cases where an unrepresented person could present his or her case as effectively as counsel. Fairness does not demand that the unrepresented litigant be able to present his case as effectively as a competent lawyer. Rather, it demands that he have a fair opportunity to present his case to the best of his ability. Nor does fairness dictate that the unrepresented litigant have a lawyer’s familiarity with procedures and forensic tactics. It does require that the trial judge treat the litigant fairly and attempt to accommodate unrepresented litigants’ unfamiliarity with the process so as to permit them to present their case. In doing so, the trial judge must, of course, respect the rights of the other party.

[36] In Ridout v. Ridout, 2006 MBCA 59, leave to appeal ref’d [2007] 1 S.C.R. xiv, the Manitoba Court of Appeal noted, at para. 12, that self-represented litigants do not have “some kind of special status”. At para. 13, the Court said:

The trial judge cannot become the advocate for the unrepresented litigant, nor can the judge provide legal advice. However, the judge’s challenge is to take pains to ensure that a party’s lack of legal training does not unduly prejudice his or her ability to participate meaningfully in the proceeding.

[37] A review of the steps taken in the court below demonstrates that the appellant was able to understand the procedural requirements of the proceedings taken against her, including filing an Amended Statement of Defence, filing affidavits, and arguing her case before both Justice Goepel and Justice Greyell. The proceedings taken against the appellant by the City were not of a complex nature and the appellant, as a realtor, could be expected to be aware that zoning bylaws impose limitations on the use of property.

[38] In view of the circumstances described above, I am of the view that no effect ought to be given to the appellant’s arguments that she had an unfair trial.

Blue Divider Line

BC Civil Liberties Association says free speech protected by recent court ruling
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - 10/19/2011

The BC Civil Liberties Association is heralding a decision from Canada's top court, which they say protects free speech on the internet.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled hyperlinking is not the same as publishing, and therefore can never be defamatory.

The BCCLA intervened in the case.

Their lawyer, Roy Millen, says the ruling ensures access to information isn't compromised.

He says, "even if you say you think it's right, or even if you say you agree with it, then the hyperlinker is not going to be libel."

The case was brought forward by a former Green party campaign manager, who launched several libel actions against Google, Myspace and even Wikipedia.

Blue Divider Line

Interpretation Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 238
This Act is Current to March 31, 2010

Effect of private Acts
6 A provision in a private Act does not affect the rights of any person, except only as referred to or mentioned in that Act.

Enactment always speaking
7 (1) Every enactment must be construed as always speaking.

(2) If a provision in an enactment is expressed in the present tense, the provision applies to the circumstances as they arise.

Enactment remedial
8 Every enactment must be construed as being remedial, and must be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

Title and preamble
9 The title and preamble of an enactment are part of it and are intended to assist in explaining its meaning and object.

Blue Divider Line

Local Government Act
Regional District Liabilities Regulation
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 97/2007, April 20, 2007]

1 Definitions
2 Certain types of agreement liabilities exempt
3 Regional park and regional trail borrowing
4 Drinking water protection orders — installation of treatment works
5 Liquid waste management plans

Blue Divider Line

Local Government; Taxation (Rural Area) Acts
Regional District Tax Regulation
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 336/2008, November 28, 2008]

Relationship between tax rates for different property classes

Blue Divider Line

Local Government Act
Tax Rate Limits Regulation
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 143/85]

Blue Divider Line

Blue Divider Line

Local Government Act; Community Charter
Regional District of Central Okanagan Regulation
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 346/2008, November 28, 2008]

1 Transit service
2 Emergency Programs
3 Health Regulation
Health Regulation
3 The Regional District of Central Okanagan is granted the additional power of Health Regulation under section 523 (1) (a) of the Local Government Act with respect to regulating persons, their premises and activities, in order to promote the preservation of health of all inhabitants of the electoral areas, as an extended service.
[en. B.C. Reg. 494/94.]
4 Business licensing
5 Regional Crime Prevention
6 Transport Demand Management
7 Explosives
8 Intermunicipal scheme respecting businesses

Blue Divider Line

Local Services Act
Subdivision Regulations
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 4/2010, January 14, 2010]

* This is only a snippett, please click link for entire Act *

Regulations apply where there is no bylaw
1.03 Notwithstanding section 1.01 (b), where a bylaw does not regulate a matter covered by these regulations, these regulations apply to that matter.

[en. B.C. Reg. 424/87.]
2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to assist in assuring the safe, healthful, equitable, efficient, economical and attractive subdivision of land for the benefit of the community as a whole.

3.01 In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires:

"approval" means approval in writing from the authority having jurisdiction; 

"building regulations" means regulation of construction of buildings by a building code adopted pursuant to the Local Services Act or to the Building Regulations Division of the Municipal Actą; 1. R.S.B.C. 1960-255

"community water system" means a system of waterworks which serves 2 or more parcels and which is owned, operated and maintained by an improvement district under the Water Act or the Municipal Act, or a regional district, or which is regulated under the Water Utility Act;

"potable water" means water which is approved for drinking purposes by the medical health officer in accordance with the Health Act;

Other regulations
4.02 Nothing contained in these regulations shall relieve the owner of a subdivision from the responsibility to seek out and comply with the legislation applicable to his undertaking.

Community water systems
4.09 (1) The design of any community water system to serve the subdivision shall be in accordance with the requirements of any authority having jurisdiction over the system pursuant to

(a) the Health Act and the Water Utility Act,

(b) the Health Act and the Water Act, when an improvement district has an applicable subdivision bylaw pursuant to the Water Act, or

(c) the Health Act and the Municipal Act, when a regional district has an applicable bylaw setting out the terms and conditions of any extension to its community water system,

as the case may be.

(2) The community water system approved pursuant to section 4.09 (1) shall be installed as approved before the subdivision is approved.

(3) Notwithstanding the requirements of section 4.09 (2), a subdivision may be approved prior to the construction of the community water system, provided that an arrangement securing performance of such construction satisfactory to the approving officer has been made with

(a) the Comptroller of Water Rights (under the Water Utility Act),

(b) an improvement district having an applicable subdivision bylaw adopted pursuant to the Water Act, or

(c) a regional district having an applicable bylaw setting out the terms and conditions of any extension to its community water system, as the case may be, but in no case shall the subdivision be approved before the plans for the community water system have been approved.

Water supply
4.11 Where a community water system is to be installed in a subdivision, a supply of potable water adequate to serve the subdivision shall be proven before the subdivision is approved.

"potable water" means water which is approved for drinking purposes by the medical health officer in accordance with the Health Act;

Access to navigable waters
5.06 When a subdivision borders on the shore of navigable waters, access shall be given in accordance with the requirements of the Land Title Act.

Blue Divider Line

Interpretation Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 238

This Act is Current to March 24, 2010

* These are just snippets

1 In this Act, or in an enactment:

"Act" means an Act of the Legislature, whether referred to as a statute, code or by any other name, and, when referring to past legislation, includes an ordinance or proclamation made before 1871, that has the force of law;

"regulation" means a regulation, order, rule, form, tariff of costs or fees, proclamation, letters patent, commission, warrant, bylaw or other instrument enacted

(a) in execution of a power conferred under an Act, or

(b) by or under the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council,

but does not include an order of a court made in the course of an action or an order made by a public officer or administrative tribunal in a dispute between 2 or more persons;

2 (1) Every provision of this Act applies to every enactment, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act, unless a contrary intention appears in this Act or in the enactment.

(2) The provisions of this Act apply to this Act.

(3) Nothing in this Act excludes the application to an enactment of a rule of construction applicable to it and not inconsistent with this Act.

Expressions defined
29 In an enactment:

"acquire" means to obtain by any method and includes accept, receive, purchase, be vested with, lease, take possession, control or occupation of, and agree to do any of those things, but does not include expropriate;

"dispose" means to transfer by any method and includes assign, give, sell, grant, charge, convey, bequeath, devise, lease, divest, release and agree to do any of those things;

"electoral district" means an electoral district referred to in section 18 of the Constitution Act;

"government" or "government of British Columbia" means Her Majesty in right of British Columbia;

"property" includes any right, title, interest, estate or claim to or in property;

"regional district" means a regional district as defined in the Local Government Act;

"right" includes a power, authority, privilege and licence;

Citation includes amendments
32 In an enactment a reference to another enactment of the Province or of Canada is a reference to the other enactment as amended, whether amended before or after the commencement of the enactment in which the reference occurs.

Government bound by enactments; exception
14 (1) Unless it specifically provides otherwise, an enactment is binding on the government.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an enactment that would bind or affect the government in the use or development of land, or in the planning, construction, alteration, servicing, maintenance or use of improvements, as defined in the Assessment Act, does not bind or affect the government.

Definitions in Community Charter and Local Government Act apply to other enactments
40 (1) So far as the terms defined can be applied, the definitions established by or applicable under

(a) the schedule to the Community Charter, and

(b) section 5 of the Local Government Act extend to all enactments relating to municipal and regional district matters.

(2) As an exception, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the definition of "municipality" in the Community Charter.

Mutatis mutandis
44 If an enactment provides that another enactment applies, it applies with the necessary changes and so far as it is applicable.

Blue Divider Line

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 *snippetts*

Constitution of Parliament of Canada

17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

Privileges, etc., of Houses

18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.(8)

First Session of the Parliament of Canada

Money Votes; Royal Assent
Appropriation and Tax Bills
53. Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.

Blue Divider Line

Property Law Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 377

Blue Divider Line

Local Government Act
British Columbia Building Code Regulation
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 322/2009, February 1, 2010]

Blue Divider Line

Law and Equity Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 253
This Act is Current to March 17, 2010

Application of English law in British Columbia
2 Subject to section 3, the Civil and Criminal Laws of England, as they existed on November 19, 1858, so far as they are not from local circumstances inapplicable, are in force in British Columbia, but those laws must be held to be modified and altered by all legislation that has the force of law in British Columbia or in any former Colony comprised within its geographical limits.

Laws not in force in British Columbia
3 Section 28 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1828 and all sections of the Real Property Act, 1845 are not in force in British Columbia.


These are just some of the UK Laws we found
Not sure that these laws are applicable or not, but might be worth looking into

Paymaster General Act 1848 (c.55)

Indictable Offences Act 1848 (c.42)

House of Lords Costs Taxation Act 1849 (repealed) (c.78)

Judicial Factors Act 1849 (c.51)

Sequestration Act 1849 (c.67)

Court of Session Act 1850 (c.36)
50. Parties may choose their own jury.

Piracy Act 1850 (c.26)

Landlord and Tenant Act 1851 (c.25)

COURT OF CHANCERY ACT 1851 (c. 83) (c.83)

High Peak Mining Customs and Mineral Courts Act 1851

Criminal Justice Administration Act 1851 (c.55)

Crown Lands Act 1851 (c.42)
21. Commissioners of Works, &c. to perform the duties formerly performed by Surveyor General.

Evidence Act 1851 (c.99)

School Sites Act 1852 (c.49)

School Sites Act 1849 (c.49)

Commissioners of Works Act 1852 (c.28)

Entail Amendment Act 1853 (c.94)

Entail Amendment Act 1848 (c.36)
Heirs, Creditors, Executor, Private Roads, Improvements, Trust, Lease, Bond, Rent, Estate, Debts, Land, Minors, Guardians, Forfeiture, Life Rents, Conveyances, Securities

Evidence Amendment Act 1853 (c.83)

Public Revenue And Consolidated Fund Charges Act 1854 (c.94)

Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854 (c.91)

Inclosure Act 1854 (c.97)
Fencing, Road, and Land

Inclosure Act 1852 (c.79)

Inclosure Act 1849 (c.83)
Easements, Chief Rents, Fishing, Sale of Land, Parishes, Title

Inclosure Commissioners Act 1851 (c.53)

Common Law Procedure Act 1854

Common Law Procedure Act 1852 (c.76)
Tenant, Landlord, Non-payment of Rent

Defence Act 1854

Medical Act of 1858

School Grants Act 1855

Blue Divider Line

Can you believe it, there is an Apology Act.

Apology Act
[SBC 2006] CHAPTER 19
Assented to May 18, 2006

Blue Divider Line

Supreme Court of Canada Decisions Database

BC Supreme Court Decisions Database

BC Provincial Court Decisions Database

Blue Divider Line

Homeless Have the Right to Camp Out in a Park

In the Supreme Court of BC
Victoria (City) v. Adams

Dec 9, 2009

July 30, 2009

April 3, 2009

Sept 8, 2008

Oct 14, 2008

Blue Divider Line

Loss of Legal Aid diminishes our rights
Kelowna Capital News - February 11, 2010

To the editor:

Having read the Feb. 7 edition of the Capital News (No Day in Court) I am again reminded that our current legal system has gone far astray.

The recognition and protection of fundamental human rights in this country goes back well beyond the formation of this country. For example, the Magna Carta expressed the recognition of many of these fundamental principles. In particular, and with reference to your lead story, Article 40 states: “To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.” Yet, here we are in a system that forces an individual to pay for right or justice.

It’s quite ironic when you realize that, if you are dealing with a government entity (like the Canada Revenue Agency for example), their legal counsel is the Department of Justice, another arm of government. And you, as a taxpayer, are paying, through your taxes, towards the salaries of their lawyers. So, in effect, you are paying them to go to court against you and you have to pay for your own legal counsel too.

So what happened along the way? Why is our legal system designed this way? Why must one be forced to seek legal counsel to resolve any issue?

Simply put, we have forgotten who we are as human beings. And although we are brought up to believe we have rights, when it comes down to it, do you really know what they are? Growing up, we are not taught at home or in school about the concept of rights and freedoms as they apply to us as individuals in society. We know we have them but, how does one go about exercising them, or defending oneself, if one doesn’t know what they are?

Have you ever read a law or statute? If you ever attempted it, you would quickly find that the language is very difficult for the average individual (even some legal professionals) to comprehend. I believe our legal/justice system has evolved to where our laws are written this way so we are literally forced to seek legal counsel to resolve our issues.

Why should it be this way? Why can’t our laws and legal system be designed so the ordinary citizen can defend him or herself? Is it complacency or laziness on our part or has our society been molded so that the knowledge and awareness of who we are as human beings, and the rights and freedoms we inherently possess, have been intentionally suppressed until we cannot defend ourselves without paying someone else to do it for us?

Grant Baudais,

Blue Divider Line

Laws are designed so you can break them

Blue Divider Line

Never doubt the ability of a small group of concerned citizens to change the world.  In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.

Blue Divider Line

If you have comments, ideas, solutions, concerns or complaints regarding the law and legal system you can try contacting your B.C., or Canada government, but don't expect them to listen.  You may as well be talking to the wall.  Other than that you may make a comment by filling out the form below and/or comment directly to the government itself.

Government of B.C.

Government of Canada

Democracy Rules on the North Westside!

Blue Divider Line

If this form does not work please,

Blue Divider Line

Laws in BC Comment Form
SUBJECT   *(required)
GOVERNMENT   *(required)
(If your government is not listed above, please type it in below and choose "other government" above)
COMMUNITY   *(required)
(If your community is not listed above, please type it in below and choose "other community" above)
 disguise your email address from spam similar to this below
 name "at"


Blue Divider Line

View comments here.

Blue Divider Line

Gossip for All
Make a Comment

INDEX ALL ] Air Quality ] Agriculture ] Barking Bylaw ] BC Election 09 ] BC Gov ] BC Human Rights ] BC Hydro ] [ BC Laws ] BC Native Land Claim ] BC Rivers ] Boating ] Building Inspection ] Building Laws ] Building Laws RDCO ] Bullying ] Bylaw Enforcement ] Canada Post ] Canadian Gov. ] Carbon Tax ] Democracy ] Denied Delegates ] Dictatorship ] Dog Complaints ] Drugs ] EDC ] Food ] Garbage Law ] Gas Prices ] Global Warming ] Gov. Spending ] Great Ideas ] Health Care ] Homelessness ] ICBC ] Inland Port ] Legal System ] Library ] Missing Pets ] New Government ] Petition to Parl. ] Planning ] RDCO Agreement ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Policy Manual ] RDCO Spending ] Road Rage ] Robin Hood ] School Tax ] Security ] Smoking ] Sewer ] Suicide ] Tasers ] Telus Cell ] Telus TV ] Telus Wireless ] Tourism ] Tussock Moth ] Wage Inequality ] Water Board ] Western Budworm ] Westside T. Station ] WFN ] Wind Power ] Wrong ]

Blue Divider Line

Gossip for All
Read others Comments

Air Quality ] Agriculture ] Barking Bylaw ] BC Election 09 ] BC Gov. ] BC Human Rights ] BC Hydro ] [ BC Laws ] BC Native Land Claim ] BC Rivers ] Boating ] Building Inspection ] Buidling Laws ] Building Laws RDCO ] Bullying ] Bylaw Enforcement ] Canada Post ] Canadian Gov. ] Carbon Tax ] Democracy ] Denied Delegates ] Dictatorship ] Dog Complaints ] Drugs ] EDC ] Food ] Garbage Laws ] Gas Prices ] Global Warming ] Gov. Spending ] Great Ideas ] Health Care ] Homelessness ] ICBC ] Inland Port ] Legal System ] Missing Pets ] New Government ] Petition to Parl. ] Planning Minutes ] RDCO Agreement ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Policy Manual ] Road Rage ] RDCO Spending ] Robin Hood ] School Tax ] Secure Prosperity ] Sewer ] Smoking ] Suicide ] Tasers ] Telus Cell ] Telus TV ] Telus Wireless ] Tourism ] Tussock Moth ] Wage Inequality ] Water Board ] Western Budworm ] Westside T. Station ] WFN ] Wind Power ] Wrong ]

Blue Divider Line

In Other Towns

INDEX ALL ] Boucherie Rd ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Penticton ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

Blue Divider Line


Boucherie Road ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Pentiction ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

On you will find local Okanagan BC businesses, services, classifieds, local arts and crafts, lakefront vacation rentals, plus much more located near and around Okanagan Lake.  We will be adding to this site, so come back and check it often.

Blue Divider Line