January 16, 2025 • 22 mins
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.
Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Adam Stirling (00:00):
It's time for our regular segment, joined as
always by barrister andsolicitor with Mulligan Defense
Lawyers.
Morning, michael Mulligan, withLegally Speaking how you doing.
Hey, good morning, I'm doinggreat.
Always good to be here andbefore we get underway today I
just wanted to pass on.
I've been getting a lot of goodfeedback about those ideas that
you broached in terms ofpotential retaliatory tariffs or
actions that Canada could takewith respect to intellectual
(00:21):
property.
I saw you have that post up onX that's making the rounds,
getting lots of great feedback,so I wanted to say thank you for
that again.
Michael Mulligan (00:29):
Well, that's good.
I hope the people makingdecisions about that are
listening.
I don't think we're bringing theUS to its knees by putting
tariffs on orange juice ortrying to cut off our maple
syrup deliveries or something,whereas restricting US
intellectual property rights inCanada would be just completely
devastating to them, and it alsoformed one of the core tenets
(00:51):
of the free trade agreementswe've had with the US over the
years.
That's actually part of theagreement that we reached with
them to increase US patentprotections in Canada, and if
they are going to repudiate thedeal with us, that seems like a
completely natural response toat the very least return things
to where they were or go furtherin that direction.
(01:14):
And I do think if that approachis taken, you're going to
immediately snap to attentionhuge parts of the US economy
that are desperately reliant onother countries enforcing US
patents and intellectualproperty rights.
I'm going to put great pressureon the US administration to end
that, lest their businesses beworth literally nothing.
(01:37):
You'll be able to erect yourown Trump Tower if you wish, or
make yourself a Tesla if you sochoose, and you can just imagine
how unpopular those thingsmight be.
So it seems like an excellentlever for Canada or other small
countries to pull and of course,it's a lever which has
literally worked with the US onmore than one occasion to
devastating effect.
(01:58):
So hopefully the people incharge of making those decisions
are listening carefully andthey don't think we're going to
get there dealing with orangejuice or maple syrup.
Adam Stirling (02:07):
Indeed.
For the moment, though, you andI, as we dive into today's
agenda up, first, perhapsappropriately, a $2 million
lottery win, Was it a groupticket or not?
Michael Mulligan (02:17):
Yeah, I think this is just a great case.
As the judge points out,ordinarily a lottery win should
be a very happy event, and thiswas a big lottery win.
This was a fellow who worked ata warehouse on the lower
mainland, who was a short-haultrucker, and the BC-49 ticket
came in to the tune of $2million.
That would ordinarily be a very, very happy event.
Instead, it wound up inlitigation, and the litigation
(02:41):
ensued because of a disagreementwith the other people he worked
with there about whether theticket was purchased as a group
ticket or whether he purchasedit himself, and so it's a really
interesting case in that regard.
The evidence came out there wasindeed a group of people who
worked in the warehouse whowould, from time to time,
(03:03):
purchase group lottery ticketsand pool their money to do so.
How exactly that worked, theevidence differed.
There was, as I guess with manyof these things, no written
agreement kept, and the processof what happened was irregular
and varied from time to time,and so the case really turned on
.
You know, have the other peoplewho worked in the warehouse who
(03:26):
are alleging that they alldeserve a share of the $2
million?
Have they established that thiswas a group purchased ticket
and when you sue somebody, theperson or people doing the suing
have the burden of proof,unlike in a criminal case where
you've got to prove somethingbeyond all reasonable doubt.
(03:46):
In a civil case, when you'resuing for money, the standard of
proof is on a balance ofprobabilities, but the burden of
proof remains on the peoplethat are making the claim to try
to establish that what they'reclaiming happened, at least
probably.
And in this case there wasevidence and everyone agreed
that there was this group offive people who did from time to
(04:07):
time pool their money to buytickets.
The people doing the suing theother people who alleged 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 elseabout the win.
The fellow who bought theticket didn't tell anyone else
about the win.
They found out I guess there'sa picture of him with one of
(04:29):
those comically oversized checkson the PC lottery website or
whatnot, right Interesting.
And so they became suspicioushey, why didn't he tell us?
And the judge found that theymay well have legitimately
thought that they had aninterest in a portion of the
money.
Now, part of the challenge herewas what happened with this
group of people was completelyirregular and generally
undocumented.
(04:49):
Sometimes some person would buytickets, other times another
person in the group would buytickets.
There was nobody clearlydefined who would do it.
There were, however, records ofthis group WhatsApp messaging
group, where there were photoscirculated on a number of
occasions showing the lotterytickets that were purchased in
common, and there were 16 photosof that kind.
Now the people doing the suingthe other warehouse workers
(05:13):
claimed that well, this was aregular thing.
It occurred all the time.
It was $50.
Different people would buy it.
If you didn't have your moneyright away, somebody else would
cover for you and put it in.
Now, all the people doing thesuing also agreed that the
winner, the guy who bought theticket, also had a habit of
personally buying lotterytickets.
So that was a confoundingfactor.
(05:33):
Now, some of the interestingevidence included that at the
time the lottery ticket waspurchased, it was purchased from
a Chevron station.
There were records from BCLottery Corporation showing that
within the one minute thisticket was sold, a total of only
$12 in tickets were purchased,and the debit card of the man
(05:56):
who purchased it spent $10 atthe Chevron at exactly that time
.
That was important becausethat's not $50, right, and so
there would be some evidence.
Well, this wasn't a grouppurchase, it's only 10 bucks.
And there were no pictures ofthe ticket or this ticket sent
out.
The other problem for the groupwho were doing the suing is that
evidence from the person whoclaimed that he had collected
(06:20):
money from the others and givenit to the man who bought the
ticket just kept changing everytime he was asked about it.
The first time he swore anaffidavit about it, saying that
he gave the money to the ticketpurchaser at a meeting that
morning.
Then he later found out thatthe fellow wasn't at that
meeting, so then he changed hisstory to.
Well, he gave him the moneyafter the meeting, but then it
(06:41):
changed again to have been givento him on some other occasion.
And ultimately the judge foundthat that person's evidence was
just unreliable.
And the reasons that he gavefor these ever-shifting versions
of events included a claim thathe was feeling pressured to act
quickly.
And his other explanation forthe changing of claims was that
his father was diagnosed with aserious illness.
(07:03):
And the judge didn't find thatany of those things alleviated
his concerns about this changingversion of events.
And at the end of the day bearin mind what I said at the
outset when you're suingsomebody, you've got the burden
of proving it right.
And ultimately the judgeconcluded that look, just that
shifting evidence about how thismoney might have been passed
(07:25):
along was just not reliable.
It couldn't be relied upon andreally the history of what was
going on here was all over theplace.
Sometimes one person would buytickets, sometimes another
person would buy tickets.
There was no consistent pattern.
That combined with the factthat the amount of tickets
purchased didn't correspond withany routine amount it was $10
(07:47):
or $12.
It was a little hard to figureout why the two amounts didn't
quite line up, but it certainlywasn't $50.
Given all of that, the judgeconcluded that even though the
people may have been suspiciousbecause the fellow who won
didn't tell them about it andthey may have been legitimately
have a suspicion, suspicion isnot enough.
And just on that fact pattern,with no agreement, no
(08:08):
photographs, no clear evidenceabout money being given, it just
wasn't enough to establish on abalance of probabilities that
this ticket was purchased bythis man for the group or that
he had somehow failed topurchase group tickets.
That was the other claim thatyou know if he didn't, the money
wasn't used to purchase it.
He had failed to do it.
It just wasn't clear and didn'tget up to the level of probably
(08:32):
, and so I guess at the end ofthe day, the short-haul truck
driver keeps the $2 million andthe other people are presumably
still working at the warehouse.
So that's the end of the $2million lottery ticket win and
what you need to do if you wantto prove that you deserve a
share of the prize MichaelMulligan, with Mulligan Defence
Lawyers.
Adam Stirling (08:49):
Legally Speaking will continue right after this.
Legally speaking, as wecontinue on CFAX 1070 with
Michael Mulligan, MulliganDefense Lawyers.
Michael, on to our next story aseven-year jail sentence for
repeatedly pretending to be anurse, including in Victoria.
Michael Mulligan (09:05):
This is a bad case.
The profile of the person inthis case she was 52 years of
age at the time of sentencing,just sentenced recently, just
sentenced recently and she'ssomebody who had 67 prior
convictions as an adult forcrimes involving fraud and
dishonesty, including 18 fraudconvictions.
She was released on parole andcame to BC while on parole and
(09:30):
then swiftly resumed herfraudulent activity.
The fraudulent activity mostunfortunately involved in many
instances using the identity ofanother person who was in fact a
nurse to gain employment.
She started that by actuallygetting employment here, or
(09:51):
employment in BC at least, at adental office, not originally
doing nursing, but at the dentaloffice.
She defrauded the dentist of$8,000, stealing and signing
checks.
But she moved on again usingthis fake identity of a real
nurse who was on leave at thetime, and she created various
forged documents and forgedcredentials, in some cases
(10:16):
allowing, when things werechecked, people to check the
like.
They would wind up speaking tothe real person, but this wasn't
the real person applying forthe job.
It was somebody who was in facton leave and in other cases she
just modified the emails andtelephone numbers.
So when people were checkinginformation, she was responding
saying what a wonderful nurseshe was, and so by that process
she wound up getting variousnursing positions, some of which
(10:40):
were concurrent, including atthe Vancouver Women's Hospital,
where she was in fact workingfor some period of time as a
nurse, doing various things,including working and dealing
with patients who are coming outof anesthetic, giving them pain
medication, fentanyl and otherthings, all apparently as
directed by doctors.
(11:01):
She also wound up gettingemployment in Victoria at a
private surgery center inVictoria while she was still
employed by the BC Women'sHospital, and so all of this
eventually unwound, in partbecause of what appears to be as
I must say with some amusementa lack of professionalism, given
(11:22):
of course she wasn't aprofessional her poor nursing
skills probably because shewasn't a nurse and her bedside
manner, and so there werevarious complaints and friction
and so on in her efforts doingthese things that eventually led
all of this to unwind, in herefforts doing these things that
eventually led all of this tounwind and the charges she wound
up with.
She wound up with charges andshe'd also engaged in similar
(11:43):
conduct in Ontario.
She wound up being convicted,first in Ontario and was
sentenced to seven years inprison for similarly using this
fake identity to work as a nurse, and then she wound up with the
series of charges in BritishColumbia, including the ones
from Vancouver, the BC Women'sHospital there and the dentist's
(12:07):
office and the private surgerycentre in Victoria, and all of
this then led to well, how wasshe to be sentenced right?
And one of the things which wasan issue there is whether the
sort of how the judge is to cometo the total number of years to
sentence this woman to, Ishould say as well.
(12:29):
The sentencing process is clearfrom the decision was
confounded by virtue of the factthat the woman is obviously
just a as you might havegathered from the description a
complete and pathological liar,and so various representations
and things that she would claimwere just not true.
You know like things, like youknow when she would get arrested
she'd say, oh, I'm going topick up my granddaughter.
(12:50):
Well, there was nogranddaughter right or various
sets of things.
Oh, I had nursing training fortwo years but then previously
claimed it was a differentlength of time, judge Fowler,
just nothing.
It could be relied on anything.
Virtually.
She was saying, like she saidduring a pre-sentence report,
she was wanting to resumehairdressing with her best
friend.
They contacted the best friendwho said well, he met her in a
minimum security prison and hasvery little contact with her and
(13:12):
no idea where she is or what'sgoing on.
Virtually everything out of hermouth is just completely false.
So a terrible fact pattern anddangerous, as the judge pointed
out.
Well, you know, generallypeople weren't physically harmed
by what she was doing, althoughit sounds like there is some
botched efforts to insertneedles and so on.
Many of the people involved init are naturally, of course,
(13:34):
very upset and terrified and soon and sort of have now a lack
of faith in, you know, themedical system.
Is that person a nurse?
Is that person a doctor?
You just imagine what thatwould feel like if you found out
that while you were underanesthetic, some fraud artist
from Ontario was injecting youwith fentanyl.
You can imagine that being apretty upsetting fact pattern,
and indeed it was for many ofthe people.
(14:11):
But the judge had to deal withthis issue of whether the
sentences for this were allthese offenses right, sort of,
because at various you should becharged with things like
personation with a weapon.
Was the injecting people with aneedle?
And the theory there is thatthe people did not implicitly
consent to a non-nurse injectingthem with things and so that
was an assault.
She played guilty to that.
But one of the issues is, whenyou're sentencing somebody for
all this litany of things,should the judge impose a
(14:34):
sentence for each one of thosethings separately and add them
all up?
That would be sentences whichwould be consecutive, like
should you say, okay, well, howmuch of a sentence for that
injection with the needle whenyou weren't a nurse?
Should that be okay?
Should we add five months forthat?
And then should we add anotherfive months on to using that
forged document and add it allup?
Or should the judge be imposingconcurrent sentences, like
(14:57):
sentences run at the same time?
And one of the considerationsthere is really sort of whether
the starting point would be areyou dealing with sort of one
illegal act that has variouscrimes associated with it, like,
let's say, for example,somebody is charged with robbery
of a bank and they're alsocharged with having an
unregistered firearm and they'realso charged with having an
(15:17):
unregistered firearm and alsodriving dangerously if they sped
away from the bank and alsoassault for pushing down the
security guard.
Right, you might say, well,those aren't a bunch of discrete
things, that we should justgive small sentences to each one
and add them up.
The approach generally takenthere would be to impose
concurrent sentences to figureout what is the total
appropriate sentence for allthis illegal stuff, because
(15:39):
really it's all one bigtransaction.
You push down the securityguard, you shouldn't have the
gun, you robbed the bank and youdrove too fast when you drove
away.
Right, rather than kind ofparsing those out as separate
things, the Crown's argument waswell, these are separate
because some were in Victoria,some were in Vancouver, other
things happened back in Ontario.
The dentist's office isdifferent.
They occurred on different days.
(15:59):
It wasn't like the bank robberyexample.
On the other hand, the otherapproach to it would be well, no
, this was just a fraud artistengaged in this fraud of
pretending to be a nurse to getmoney right.
Yeah, this was just oneconglomeration of fraud.
That's the approach ultimatelythe judge took, and it doesn't
(16:23):
necessarily mean that thesentence would be less.
And one of the overarchingprinciples that a judge has to
consider is this concept of theprinciple of totality, like what
is the total appropriatesentence for this conduct?
You robbed a bank, you drovetoo fast, you had a gun you
shouldn't have had and youshoved the guy down.
The total sentence shouldcapture all of that right.
Rather than just mathematicallyadding up what might be an
appropriate sentence for pushingsomebody and what might be an
(16:43):
appropriate sentence for drivingtoo fast, you've got to take
the whole thing intoconsideration, and so that's
ultimately what the judge did.
The judge concluded that thereshould be sentences which would
run concurrently with each other, but the appropriate total
penalty here was a sentence ofseven years in the penitentiary
and interestingly, that will runconcurrently with the Ontario
(17:07):
seven-year sentence.
That's also what she got there.
She had served.
It looks like about four yearsof the or three years of that
sentence and the effect of it,the effect of the additional
seven years, will be four moreyears from the seven she got in
Ontario.
So the net effect of it will beseven, eight, nine, ten, eleven
(17:27):
years.
That will be the real effect ofit.
And so that's the ultimateconclusion.
And I should say, boy, what achallenging thing to deal with.
It doesn't look like peoplehere were sort of negligent, in
the sense that people werechecking references and so on.
Also, the case had adevastating impact on the real
(17:48):
nurse, the real nurse involvedin all of this, because her
effective reputation was sodamaged because now she's been
identified as this person who'sfraud artist.
Basically she's had to changeher name because her real name
was so sullied by the activityof this woman that she couldn't
(18:12):
carry on with it.
So it had a real impact on heras well.
So just a trail of destructionby this person.
And I must say, for some of usin the criminal justice system
sometimes these fraud cases arereally challenging to deal with,
as became apparent here,because virtually everything out
of this person's mouth wasuntrue, right, her background,
(18:34):
her friends, what she did,everything completely untrue,
challenging to sort out.
You know how that person is tobe dealt with, but I guess we
can all have some confidencethat at least for a number of
years seven years she's going tobe either in a federal
penitentiary or she gets out onparole.
(18:54):
No doubt her desire to get outon parole is going to be
impacted by virtually the factthat she was on parole at the
time.
She committed many of theseoffenses, and so she will find
yourself spending a very goodportion of that seven years in
prison, and so at least thepublic will be protected for
that length of time against hergiving you an injection when
you're coming out of anestheticat the hospital.
(19:16):
So that's the latest sentencingfor the fake nurse.
Adam Stirling (19:19):
Three minutes left Litigation over weed
gummies and email messages.
Michael Mulligan (19:25):
This one made me smile.
This is a case that's over theWest Shore.
The fact pattern is veryunfortunate.
It was a group of kids going ona trip to the forest for school
and apparently the grade 8 kids, and apparently one of them
brought some what was describedas weed gummies and gave them to
(19:47):
some other classmates who atethem.
Teachers found out about it.
There was.
Ultimately, there is disputablewhether the weed gummies quote
unquote were weed gummiescontaining CBD or THC THC being
like the psychoactive ingredientin marijuana, cbd apparently
being something that some peoplegive to like their pets and eat
(20:07):
for other medical reasons, andso there are different things.
The litigation stems from thefact that the school sent a
bunch of emails to all of theparents claiming that these kids
were involved with quoteprohibited substances close
quote which may or may not havebeen accurate, depending on what
in fact was in these gummies.
(20:28):
One of the kids wound up beingexpelled, two others wound up
being disciplined, and thefamily on behalf of the kid who
was expelled, who apparentlyreceived to eat one of the weed
gummies whatever that mightactually have been is suing the
school for things includingdefamation, claiming that these
email messages sent out to allthe parents alleging that he'd
(20:51):
been involved with quoteprohibited substances was
damaging to his reputation.
Presumably, that turns onwhether these things contained
CBD or THC and whether in factthey were prohibited.
All of this is now leading tolitigation, long examinations
for discoveries and the most thecurrent part of it decision
(21:12):
that came out was a decisionseeking to order the school to
provide the names, contactinformation for all of the
parents that they emailed onthese various occasions making
these claims.
The school didn't want toprovide that.
They resisted it, so off itwent to sort of a chambers
application.
Ultimately, the school's beenordered to do that.
The entire thing.
I must say, as I read it, itcaused me to sort of smile at
(21:34):
the weed gummy grade eightstudent problem.
But, as the judge who made thisdecision pointed out, you know,
really encouraging that theparties try to avoid unnecessary
chambers applications and so on, because we've turned some
reading students eating somegummies that may or may not have
contained THC in them into acircumstance where one of them's
(21:55):
been expelled.
Emails have been sent out, allabout them, and now they're
involved in lengthy andcomplicated litigation in the
Supreme Court, all of which isextremely unfortunate.
Lengthy and complicatedlitigation in the Supreme Court,
all of which is extremelyunfortunate.
You would have hoped that backwhen the weed gummy incident got
detected, there might have beena more sensitive way to deal
with it than there was.
But there we are and we willcontinue to, I guess, watch what
(22:19):
happens with the litigationbetween the school and the
former grade 8 student who mayor may not have eaten a weed
gummy.
Adam Stirling (22:25):
So that's the latest of that, michael Mulligan
, with Mulligan Defense Lawyers,legally speaking, during the
second half of our second hourevery Thursday on the show.
Michael, thank you, pleasure asalways.
Thank you so much.
Have a great day.
All right, you too.
It's time for our regular segment, joined as
always by barrister andsolicitor with Mulligan Defense
Lawyers.
Morning, michael Mulligan, withLegally Speaking how you doing.
Hey, good morning, I'm doinggreat.
Always good to be here andbefore we get underway today I
just wanted to pass on.
I've been getting a lot of goodfeedback about those ideas that
you broached in terms ofpotential retaliatory tariffs or
actions that Canada could takewith respect to intellectual
(00:21):
property.
I saw you have that post up onX that's making the rounds,
getting lots of great feedback,so I wanted to say thank you for
that again.
Michael Mulligan (00:29):
Well, that's good.
I hope the people makingdecisions about that are
listening.
I don't think we're bringing theUS to its knees by putting
tariffs on orange juice ortrying to cut off our maple
syrup deliveries or something,whereas restricting US
intellectual property rights inCanada would be just completely
devastating to them, and it alsoformed one of the core tenets
(00:51):
of the free trade agreementswe've had with the US over the
years.
That's actually part of theagreement that we reached with
them to increase US patentprotections in Canada, and if
they are going to repudiate thedeal with us, that seems like a
completely natural response toat the very least return things
to where they were or go furtherin that direction.
(01:14):
And I do think if that approachis taken, you're going to
immediately snap to attentionhuge parts of the US economy
that are desperately reliant onother countries enforcing US
patents and intellectualproperty rights.
I'm going to put great pressureon the US administration to end
that, lest their businesses beworth literally nothing.
(01:37):
You'll be able to erect yourown Trump Tower if you wish, or
make yourself a Tesla if you sochoose, and you can just imagine
how unpopular those thingsmight be.
So it seems like an excellentlever for Canada or other small
countries to pull and of course,it's a lever which has
literally worked with the US onmore than one occasion to
devastating effect.
(01:58):
So hopefully the people incharge of making those decisions
are listening carefully andthey don't think we're going to
get there dealing with orangejuice or maple syrup.
Adam Stirling (02:07):
Indeed.
For the moment, though, you andI, as we dive into today's
agenda up, first, perhapsappropriately, a $2 million
lottery win, Was it a groupticket or not?
Michael Mulligan (02:17):
Yeah, I think this is just a great case.
As the judge points out,ordinarily a lottery win should
be a very happy event, and thiswas a big lottery win.
This was a fellow who worked ata warehouse on the lower
mainland, who was a short-haultrucker, and the BC-49 ticket
came in to the tune of $2million.
That would ordinarily be a very, very happy event.
Instead, it wound up inlitigation, and the litigation
(02:41):
ensued because of a disagreementwith the other people he worked
with there about whether theticket was purchased as a group
ticket or whether he purchasedit himself, and so it's a really
interesting case in that regard.
The evidence came out there wasindeed a group of people who
worked in the warehouse whowould, from time to time,
(03:03):
purchase group lottery ticketsand pool their money to do so.
How exactly that worked, theevidence differed.
There was, as I guess with manyof these things, no written
agreement kept, and the processof what happened was irregular
and varied from time to time,and so the case really turned on
.
You know, have the other peoplewho worked in the warehouse who
(03:26):
are alleging that they alldeserve a share of the $2
million?
Have they established that thiswas a group purchased ticket
and when you sue somebody, theperson or people doing the suing
have the burden of proof,unlike in a criminal case where
you've got to prove somethingbeyond all reasonable doubt.
(03:46):
In a civil case, when you'resuing for money, the standard of
proof is on a balance ofprobabilities, but the burden of
proof remains on the peoplethat are making the claim to try
to establish that what they'reclaiming happened, at least
probably.
And in this case there wasevidence and everyone agreed
that there was this group offive people who did from time to
(04:07):
time pool their money to buytickets.
The people doing the suing theother people who alleged 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 elseabout the win.
The fellow who bought theticket didn't tell anyone else
about the win.
They found out I guess there'sa picture of him with one of
(04:29):
those comically oversized checkson the PC lottery website or
whatnot, right Interesting.
And so they became suspicioushey, why didn't he tell us?
And the judge found that theymay well have legitimately
thought that they had aninterest in a portion of the
money.
Now, part of the challenge herewas what happened with this
group of people was completelyirregular and generally
undocumented.
(04:49):
Sometimes some person would buytickets, other times another
person in the group would buytickets.
There was nobody clearlydefined who would do it.
There were, however, records ofthis group WhatsApp messaging
group, where there were photoscirculated on a number of
occasions showing the lotterytickets that were purchased in
common, and there were 16 photosof that kind.
Now the people doing the suingthe other warehouse workers
(05:13):
claimed that well, this was aregular thing.
It occurred all the time.
It was $50.
Different people would buy it.
If you didn't have your moneyright away, somebody else would
cover for you and put it in.
Now, all the people doing thesuing also agreed that the
winner, the guy who bought theticket, also had a habit of
personally buying lotterytickets.
So that was a confoundingfactor.
(05:33):
Now, some of the interestingevidence included that at the
time the lottery ticket waspurchased, it was purchased from
a Chevron station.
There were records from BCLottery Corporation showing that
within the one minute thisticket was sold, a total of only
$12 in tickets were purchased,and the debit card of the man
(05:56):
who purchased it spent $10 atthe Chevron at exactly that time
.
That was important becausethat's not $50, right, and so
there would be some evidence.
Well, this wasn't a grouppurchase, it's only 10 bucks.
And there were no pictures ofthe ticket or this ticket sent
out.
The other problem for the groupwho were doing the suing is that
evidence from the person whoclaimed that he had collected
(06:20):
money from the others and givenit to the man who bought the
ticket just kept changing everytime he was asked about it.
The first time he swore anaffidavit about it, saying that
he gave the money to the ticketpurchaser at a meeting that
morning.
Then he later found out thatthe fellow wasn't at that
meeting, so then he changed hisstory to.
Well, he gave him the moneyafter the meeting, but then it
(06:41):
changed again to have been givento him on some other occasion.
And ultimately the judge foundthat that person's evidence was
just unreliable.
And the reasons that he gavefor these ever-shifting versions
of events included a claim thathe was feeling pressured to act
quickly.
And his other explanation forthe changing of claims was that
his father was diagnosed with aserious illness.
(07:03):
And the judge didn't find thatany of those things alleviated
his concerns about this changingversion of events.
And at the end of the day bearin mind what I said at the
outset when you're suingsomebody, you've got the burden
of proving it right.
And ultimately the judgeconcluded that look, just that
shifting evidence about how thismoney might have been passed
(07:25):
along was just not reliable.
It couldn't be relied upon andreally the history of what was
going on here was all over theplace.
Sometimes one person would buytickets, sometimes another
person would buy tickets.
There was no consistent pattern.
That combined with the factthat the amount of tickets
purchased didn't correspond withany routine amount it was $10
(07:47):
or $12.
It was a little hard to figureout why the two amounts didn't
quite line up, but it certainlywasn't $50.
Given all of that, the judgeconcluded that even though the
people may have been suspiciousbecause the fellow who won
didn't tell them about it andthey may have been legitimately
have a suspicion, suspicion isnot enough.
And just on that fact pattern,with no agreement, no
(08:08):
photographs, no clear evidenceabout money being given, it just
wasn't enough to establish on abalance of probabilities that
this ticket was purchased bythis man for the group or that
he had somehow failed topurchase group tickets.
That was the other claim thatyou know if he didn't, the money
wasn't used to purchase it.
He had failed to do it.
It just wasn't clear and didn'tget up to the level of probably
(08:32):
, and so I guess at the end ofthe day, the short-haul truck
driver keeps the $2 million andthe other people are presumably
still working at the warehouse.
So that's the end of the $2million lottery ticket win and
what you need to do if you wantto prove that you deserve a
share of the prize MichaelMulligan, with Mulligan Defence
Lawyers.
Adam Stirling (08:49):
Legally Speaking will continue right after this.
Legally speaking, as wecontinue on CFAX 1070 with
Michael Mulligan, MulliganDefense Lawyers.
Michael, on to our next story aseven-year jail sentence for
repeatedly pretending to be anurse, including in Victoria.
Michael Mulligan (09:05):
This is a bad case.
The profile of the person inthis case she was 52 years of
age at the time of sentencing,just sentenced recently, just
sentenced recently and she'ssomebody who had 67 prior
convictions as an adult forcrimes involving fraud and
dishonesty, including 18 fraudconvictions.
She was released on parole andcame to BC while on parole and
(09:30):
then swiftly resumed herfraudulent activity.
The fraudulent activity mostunfortunately involved in many
instances using the identity ofanother person who was in fact a
nurse to gain employment.
She started that by actuallygetting employment here, or
(09:51):
employment in BC at least, at adental office, not originally
doing nursing, but at the dentaloffice.
She defrauded the dentist of$8,000, stealing and signing
checks.
But she moved on again usingthis fake identity of a real
nurse who was on leave at thetime, and she created various
forged documents and forgedcredentials, in some cases
(10:16):
allowing, when things werechecked, people to check the
like.
They would wind up speaking tothe real person, but this wasn't
the real person applying forthe job.
It was somebody who was in facton leave and in other cases she
just modified the emails andtelephone numbers.
So when people were checkinginformation, she was responding
saying what a wonderful nurseshe was, and so by that process
she wound up getting variousnursing positions, some of which
(10:40):
were concurrent, including atthe Vancouver Women's Hospital,
where she was in fact workingfor some period of time as a
nurse, doing various things,including working and dealing
with patients who are coming outof anesthetic, giving them pain
medication, fentanyl and otherthings, all apparently as
directed by doctors.
(11:01):
She also wound up gettingemployment in Victoria at a
private surgery center inVictoria while she was still
employed by the BC Women'sHospital, and so all of this
eventually unwound, in partbecause of what appears to be as
I must say with some amusementa lack of professionalism, given
(11:22):
of course she wasn't aprofessional her poor nursing
skills probably because shewasn't a nurse and her bedside
manner, and so there werevarious complaints and friction
and so on in her efforts doingthese things that eventually led
all of this to unwind, in herefforts doing these things that
eventually led all of this tounwind and the charges she wound
up with.
She wound up with charges andshe'd also engaged in similar
(11:43):
conduct in Ontario.
She wound up being convicted,first in Ontario and was
sentenced to seven years inprison for similarly using this
fake identity to work as a nurse, and then she wound up with the
series of charges in BritishColumbia, including the ones
from Vancouver, the BC Women'sHospital there and the dentist's
(12:07):
office and the private surgerycentre in Victoria, and all of
this then led to well, how wasshe to be sentenced right?
And one of the things which wasan issue there is whether the
sort of how the judge is to cometo the total number of years to
sentence this woman to, Ishould say as well.
(12:29):
The sentencing process is clearfrom the decision was
confounded by virtue of the factthat the woman is obviously
just a as you might havegathered from the description a
complete and pathological liar,and so various representations
and things that she would claimwere just not true.
You know like things, like youknow when she would get arrested
she'd say, oh, I'm going topick up my granddaughter.
(12:50):
Well, there was nogranddaughter right or various
sets of things.
Oh, I had nursing training fortwo years but then previously
claimed it was a differentlength of time, judge Fowler,
just nothing.
It could be relied on anything.
Virtually.
She was saying, like she saidduring a pre-sentence report,
she was wanting to resumehairdressing with her best
friend.
They contacted the best friendwho said well, he met her in a
minimum security prison and hasvery little contact with her and
(13:12):
no idea where she is or what'sgoing on.
Virtually everything out of hermouth is just completely false.
So a terrible fact pattern anddangerous, as the judge pointed
out.
Well, you know, generallypeople weren't physically harmed
by what she was doing, althoughit sounds like there is some
botched efforts to insertneedles and so on.
Many of the people involved init are naturally, of course,
(13:34):
very upset and terrified and soon and sort of have now a lack
of faith in, you know, themedical system.
Is that person a nurse?
Is that person a doctor?
You just imagine what thatwould feel like if you found out
that while you were underanesthetic, some fraud artist
from Ontario was injecting youwith fentanyl.
You can imagine that being apretty upsetting fact pattern,
and indeed it was for many ofthe people.
(14:11):
But the judge had to deal withthis issue of whether the
sentences for this were allthese offenses right, sort of,
because at various you should becharged with things like
personation with a weapon.
Was the injecting people with aneedle?
And the theory there is thatthe people did not implicitly
consent to a non-nurse injectingthem with things and so that
was an assault.
She played guilty to that.
But one of the issues is, whenyou're sentencing somebody for
all this litany of things,should the judge impose a
(14:34):
sentence for each one of thosethings separately and add them
all up?
That would be sentences whichwould be consecutive, like
should you say, okay, well, howmuch of a sentence for that
injection with the needle whenyou weren't a nurse?
Should that be okay?
Should we add five months forthat?
And then should we add anotherfive months on to using that
forged document and add it allup?
Or should the judge be imposingconcurrent sentences, like
(14:57):
sentences run at the same time?
And one of the considerationsthere is really sort of whether
the starting point would be areyou dealing with sort of one
illegal act that has variouscrimes associated with it, like,
let's say, for example,somebody is charged with robbery
of a bank and they're alsocharged with having an
unregistered firearm and they'realso charged with having an
(15:17):
unregistered firearm and alsodriving dangerously if they sped
away from the bank and alsoassault for pushing down the
security guard.
Right, you might say, well,those aren't a bunch of discrete
things, that we should justgive small sentences to each one
and add them up.
The approach generally takenthere would be to impose
concurrent sentences to figureout what is the total
appropriate sentence for allthis illegal stuff, because
(15:39):
really it's all one bigtransaction.
You push down the securityguard, you shouldn't have the
gun, you robbed the bank and youdrove too fast when you drove
away.
Right, rather than kind ofparsing those out as separate
things, the Crown's argument waswell, these are separate
because some were in Victoria,some were in Vancouver, other
things happened back in Ontario.
The dentist's office isdifferent.
They occurred on different days.
(15:59):
It wasn't like the bank robberyexample.
On the other hand, the otherapproach to it would be well, no
, this was just a fraud artistengaged in this fraud of
pretending to be a nurse to getmoney right.
Yeah, this was just oneconglomeration of fraud.
That's the approach ultimatelythe judge took, and it doesn't
(16:23):
necessarily mean that thesentence would be less.
And one of the overarchingprinciples that a judge has to
consider is this concept of theprinciple of totality, like what
is the total appropriatesentence for this conduct?
You robbed a bank, you drovetoo fast, you had a gun you
shouldn't have had and youshoved the guy down.
The total sentence shouldcapture all of that right.
Rather than just mathematicallyadding up what might be an
appropriate sentence for pushingsomebody and what might be an
(16:43):
appropriate sentence for drivingtoo fast, you've got to take
the whole thing intoconsideration, and so that's
ultimately what the judge did.
The judge concluded that thereshould be sentences which would
run concurrently with each other, but the appropriate total
penalty here was a sentence ofseven years in the penitentiary
and interestingly, that will runconcurrently with the Ontario
(17:07):
seven-year sentence.
That's also what she got there.
She had served.
It looks like about four yearsof the or three years of that
sentence and the effect of it,the effect of the additional
seven years, will be four moreyears from the seven she got in
Ontario.
So the net effect of it will beseven, eight, nine, ten, eleven
(17:27):
years.
That will be the real effect ofit.
And so that's the ultimateconclusion.
And I should say, boy, what achallenging thing to deal with.
It doesn't look like peoplehere were sort of negligent, in
the sense that people werechecking references and so on.
Also, the case had adevastating impact on the real
(17:48):
nurse, the real nurse involvedin all of this, because her
effective reputation was sodamaged because now she's been
identified as this person who'sfraud artist.
Basically she's had to changeher name because her real name
was so sullied by the activityof this woman that she couldn't
(18:12):
carry on with it.
So it had a real impact on heras well.
So just a trail of destructionby this person.
And I must say, for some of usin the criminal justice system
sometimes these fraud cases arereally challenging to deal with,
as became apparent here,because virtually everything out
of this person's mouth wasuntrue, right, her background,
(18:34):
her friends, what she did,everything completely untrue,
challenging to sort out.
You know how that person is tobe dealt with, but I guess we
can all have some confidencethat at least for a number of
years seven years she's going tobe either in a federal
penitentiary or she gets out onparole.
(18:54):
No doubt her desire to get outon parole is going to be
impacted by virtually the factthat she was on parole at the
time.
She committed many of theseoffenses, and so she will find
yourself spending a very goodportion of that seven years in
prison, and so at least thepublic will be protected for
that length of time against hergiving you an injection when
you're coming out of anestheticat the hospital.
(19:16):
So that's the latest sentencingfor the fake nurse.
Adam Stirling (19:19):
Three minutes left Litigation over weed
gummies and email messages.
Michael Mulligan (19:25):
This one made me smile.
This is a case that's over theWest Shore.
The fact pattern is veryunfortunate.
It was a group of kids going ona trip to the forest for school
and apparently the grade 8 kids, and apparently one of them
brought some what was describedas weed gummies and gave them to
(19:47):
some other classmates who atethem.
Teachers found out about it.
There was.
Ultimately, there is disputablewhether the weed gummies quote
unquote were weed gummiescontaining CBD or THC THC being
like the psychoactive ingredientin marijuana, cbd apparently
being something that some peoplegive to like their pets and eat
(20:07):
for other medical reasons, andso there are different things.
The litigation stems from thefact that the school sent a
bunch of emails to all of theparents claiming that these kids
were involved with quoteprohibited substances close
quote which may or may not havebeen accurate, depending on what
in fact was in these gummies.
(20:28):
One of the kids wound up beingexpelled, two others wound up
being disciplined, and thefamily on behalf of the kid who
was expelled, who apparentlyreceived to eat one of the weed
gummies whatever that mightactually have been is suing the
school for things includingdefamation, claiming that these
email messages sent out to allthe parents alleging that he'd
(20:51):
been involved with quoteprohibited substances was
damaging to his reputation.
Presumably, that turns onwhether these things contained
CBD or THC and whether in factthey were prohibited.
All of this is now leading tolitigation, long examinations
for discoveries and the most thecurrent part of it decision
(21:12):
that came out was a decisionseeking to order the school to
provide the names, contactinformation for all of the
parents that they emailed onthese various occasions making
these claims.
The school didn't want toprovide that.
They resisted it, so off itwent to sort of a chambers
application.
Ultimately, the school's beenordered to do that.
The entire thing.
I must say, as I read it, itcaused me to sort of smile at
(21:34):
the weed gummy grade eightstudent problem.
But, as the judge who made thisdecision pointed out, you know,
really encouraging that theparties try to avoid unnecessary
chambers applications and so on, because we've turned some
reading students eating somegummies that may or may not have
contained THC in them into acircumstance where one of them's
(21:55):
been expelled.
Emails have been sent out, allabout them, and now they're
involved in lengthy andcomplicated litigation in the
Supreme Court, all of which isextremely unfortunate.
Lengthy and complicatedlitigation in the Supreme Court,
all of which is extremelyunfortunate.
You would have hoped that backwhen the weed gummy incident got
detected, there might have beena more sensitive way to deal
with it than there was.
But there we are and we willcontinue to, I guess, watch what
(22:19):
happens with the litigationbetween the school and the
former grade 8 student who mayor may not have eaten a weed
gummy.
Adam Stirling (22:25):
So that's the latest of that, michael Mulligan
, with Mulligan Defense Lawyers,legally speaking, during the
second half of our second hourevery Thursday on the show.
Michael, thank you, pleasure asalways.
Thank you so much.
Have a great day.
All right, you too.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!