December 12, 2024 • 22 mins
Why did former Constable Ferris' questionable actions lead to a legal overturning of drug convictions, and what role did an inadequate defence play in this dramatic courtroom saga? Join us as we promise to unravel the complexities of police misconduct, discredited testimonies, and the impact of mental health on legal defence. With Michael Mulligan of Mulligan Defence Lawyers as our guide, we navigate through a case that underscores how fragile justice can be, hinging on the integrity of evidence and the robustness of representation. This is more than just a legal story—it's a reflection on trust in law enforcement and the resilience of the appeals process.
We also explore a tangled web of inheritance and relationship status with profound implications for estate distribution. Was Sharon and Dick's companionship truly marriage-like, and how does this affect the legacy left behind? Michael Mulligan helps us dissect the judge’s decision, which drew from intimate accounts of the couple’s shared experiences rather than family skepticism. This episode highlights the critical need for clarity in wills, as we confront issues of spoliation and sibling contestation. Prepare for an engaging discussion that lays bare the subtle intricacies of human relationships and their legal ramifications.
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, as always, for our regular segment
with barrister and solicitor,with Mulligan defene lawyers.
It's Legally Speaking withMichael Mulligan.
Morning, Michael.
How are we doing?
Hey, good morning.
I'm doing great.
Always good to be here.
Some interesting items on theagenda today.
Up first, I'm seeing drugconvictions being overturned and
there's a complicated situationaround this.
One Help set this up.
Michael Mulligan (00:22):
It is complicated.
It's further fallout from avery unfortunate circumstance
with the Victoria City Police anow former officer there, former
Constable Ferris, who wasinvestigated by the RCMP
Anti-Corruption Unit, whoconcluded this is the language
from the judge that he wasbelieved to be involved in 19
(00:44):
instances of misconduct,including associating with
suspects of policeinvestigations, divulging
details of police investigationsto family members and others,
improperly accessing policedatabases, lying to
investigators, devolvingsensitive information to others.
So very serious conduct by thisformer Victoria City police
(01:08):
officer.
That's had other fallout thatpeople may be familiar with.
There was another local casewhich involved that particular
officer and then an even moreunfortunate effort to conceal
his involvement with it.
But the case that was justdealt with by the Court of
(01:32):
Appeal was a serious druginvestigation where Constable
Ferris former Constable Ferriswas one of the central
investigators and a key to thetrial.
The fact pattern was aninteresting one.
It was a fact pattern involvinga large volume of drugs of
various kinds GHB, fentanyl,mdma, methamphetamine, heroin,
(01:57):
cocaine most of which was foundin a large safe which was in an
apartment, in a large safe whichwas in an apartment, and the
issue at the trial was whetherthe accused was in possession of
the drugs located in the safeand it was ambiguous because the
accused did not own theapartment where the safe was.
(02:17):
Somebody else did.
The connection made between theaccused in the case and this
safe full of drugs turned onthat Constable Ferris.
And the fact pattern was thatin the apartment where the big
drug safe was there was asmaller safe that also had drugs
(02:37):
.
The police managed to get intothe smaller safe.
It had a key which opened thebigger safe.
However, this Constable Ferristestified that he went to the
home of the accused a differentapartment and claimed that he
found in the accused's bedroom akey to the larger safe in the
(03:01):
bedroom.
He didn't document it by takingany pictures of it and he
claimed that he found this keyand that key opened the safe.
And on the basis of ConstableFerris's evidence, the trial
judge concluded that there wassufficient evidence to prove
that the accused was inpossession of all the drugs
(03:23):
found in this big safe.
The trouble was that thatrested entirely on Constable
Ferris' not properly documentedclaim that he found the key in
the accused's apartment.
There was another officer whocould confirm that the key that
Constable Ferris somehow got didopen the big safe, but the
(03:44):
whole thing rested on Ferris.
The accused was convicted andsentenced to a significant
period of time in custody and Anappeal of that conviction was
just heard and decided by the BCCourt of Appeal and the
arguments on the appeal included.
(04:04):
First of all there should be anew trial because the whole
thing hung on Constable Ferris,who's been totally discredited.
But the second argument thatwas made was an argument that
the lawyer representing by theaccused in that case hadn't
adequately represented him inthe case and on that basis they
(04:26):
argued there was a miscarriageof justice and it's clear,
looking at the court of appealdecision, that there was reason
to be concerned about the lawyerwho had conducted that trial.
Reason to be concerned aboutthe lawyer who had conducted
that trial, and indeed thelawyer who conducted that trial
is a Victoria case.
The trial lawyer provided anaffidavit confirming that he had
(04:47):
been at the time of the trialexperiencing anxiety and
depression that had beenworsening and was subsequently
diagnosed with a majordepressive disorder.
And the lawyer acknowledgedthat he had not done various
things at the trial, includingchallenging the lawfulness of
Constable Ferris or Mr Ferrisgoing into his client's
(05:11):
apartment to allegedly find thiskey in the bedroom.
That hadn't been challenged andthe lawyer acknowledged that he
had not challenged thelawfulness of the search of the
apartment in which the big safewas found and instead the focus
was simply on whether theevidence proved that the accused
(05:31):
was in possession of what wasfound in the safe.
Ultimately, rather than in thedefense theory, he was just a
customer.
There was some there wasconnection between the accused
and rather than in the defensetheory, he was just a customer.
Uh, there was some.
There was connection betweenthe accused and this apartment
where the big drug safe wasfound somebody else's apartment,
surveillance of him, you know,coming there, so on, um, but
(05:51):
there wasn't, for example, anyevidence he had a key to the
apartment, right, um, and sothere was.
The court of appeal said thetrial judge was plainly
concerned about Mr Ferris'stestimony and that Mr Ferris was
the only witness who could linkthe key to the accused
(06:21):
apartment or parking there onvarious occasions.
The connection to him was theFerris' evidence claiming that
Ferris went into the accused'sapartment and found a key.
The key fit the safe.
Therefore the judge concludedthat that was good evidence that
the accused was in possessionof what was in the safe and on
the other hand, for example, inthat apartment with the big safe
and all the drugs, there wasother drugs GHB kept in the
freezer Maybe that's where youkeep GHB.
(06:42):
And the judge said well, we'renot satisfied that the accused
was in possession of the drugsin the safe or in the fridge,
sorry, in somebody else'sapartment, right.
And so the entire thing hung onFerris, and so ultimately here
the court of Appeal allowed theappeal and they allowed the
(07:02):
appeal and the Crown agreed thatthe appeal should be allowed.
Just concluding that, yeah, theCrown agreed that the way the
case was defended notchallenging the search for the
key alleged to have been foundin the person's apartment, the
accused's apartment, or thesearch of the apartment where
the drugs were found, for whichthere was apparently a warrant,
but sometimes there can be areview of whether the warrant
(07:25):
should have been issued thosethings just weren't done and it
sounds like as a result of themental disorder, the major
depressive disorder that thedefense counsel was suffering
from, and so a very unfortunatestate of affairs.
(07:46):
Really, the origin of all ofthis is former Constable Ferris
right, and the misconduct thathe was determined to have been
involved in by that RCMPanti-corruption investigation of
him the other background ofConstable Ferris listeners may
recall is that that sameConstable Ferris was being
investigated for criminal orthat kind of conduct and they
(08:07):
left him on the job workingwhile he was being investigated
so as not to tip him off, and hehad been involved in a serious
investigation including firearms.
Including firearms.
And then, after Ferris was, Iguess, they concluded that
investigation and he wasdetermined to have engaged in
(08:27):
that conduct and removed fromthe department.
The Victoria Police, veryunfortunately, in that
investigation that he'd beeninvolved with, claimed to end
that investigation and four dayslater restart what amounted to
exactly the same investigation,without revealing that Ferris
had anything to do with it, totry to remove the taint that
(08:48):
would be created by having thisperson who was himself under
investigation at the time.
He was the investigator, andthat didn't fly either, and so
the tale of wreckage that formerConstable Ferris has left has
not yet ended his entiresentence in the time it took to
(09:25):
get from that conviction in 2019to now at the end of 2024.
So we have a circumstance wherea man who may have been innocent
has spent a significant periodof time in prison on the
strength of the evidence fromConstable Ferris, and so I guess
one of the takeaways from allof this is sort of the
importance of, you know,diligent work by defense counsel
(09:45):
to try to make sure that thiskind of thing doesn't happen.
Whether, if those things werechallenged right the Ferris's
claim about the lawfulness ofFerris's claim that he went into
this man's apartment and foundthe magic key Whether that would
have revealed the problem andwhat was going on with him
earlier, we do not know.
But in any case that's morelegal wreckage caused by that
(10:12):
officer or former officer and itjust shows you how, if the
system doesn't manage to detectthese things, just how much harm
can occur.
So that's the latest from theCourt of Appeal and the latest
on the wreckage left behind byformer Constable Ferris of the
Victoria Police Department.
Adam Stirling (10:31):
All right, we'll take a quick break.
Legally Speaking with MichaelMulligan will continue right
after this.
Legally Speaking continues onCFAX 1070 with Michael Mulligan
from Mulligan Defense Lawyers.
Our next battle matter, michael, it says with no will, who
receives a $3.1 million estatemight turn on whether the
deceased was in quote amarriage-like relationship.
(10:53):
What happened?
Michael Mulligan (10:55):
Well, the first thing that everyone should
remember when they hear thisstory is go get your will done.
So this was a story involvingtwo people, dick and Sharon.
Sharon was originally fromVictoria, as it turns out, and
these two met many years ago 38years.
(11:15):
They had a relationshiptogether.
They originally met at theJericho Tennis Club over in
Vancouver and neither of themhad any children and didn't have
any children during the courseof their relationship.
And after this 38-yearrelationship, sharon sadly
passed away.
Sharon sadly passed away andshe was, at the time, 79.
(11:40):
And Dick was 86.
And so, without a will, there'sa section of the Wills, estates
and Succession Act it's section20 for those keeping score at
home that provides that ifsomebody dies without a will and
if they have no children, theirestate passes to their spouse.
Well, sometimes that's clear,other times it's not.
(12:01):
Here, these two are not married, but the legal assessment is
whether they were in amarriage-like relationship.
What's that?
In 2024?
And so this case turned on.
And then so what happened isSharon passed away, and then,
(12:23):
not too long after, a couple ofyears later, before the case was
decided in 2022, dick passedaway, and so the issue then
became who gets the money.
Sharon had one sibling okay, hewas the person who was starting
this litigation and if Sharonwas not in a marriage-like
(12:44):
relationship, then a differentsection of the Wills, estates
and Succession Act when thereare no children and no spouse,
everything goes to the siblings.
So he would get the three plusmillion dollars.
Right, that's the base for thelitigation.
On the other hand, if they werein a marriage-like relationship
after Sharon's passing, maybeDick learned from Sharon's what
(13:07):
was going on with Sharon.
Dick made a will and he made awill providing that one-fifth of
his estate would go to a goodfriend that he spent time with
at the tennis club and the restof his estate would go to his
three nieces and nephews,because he didn't have any
children, and his estate wouldinclude, if there was a
marriage-like relationship, thethree plus million dollars from
(13:30):
Sharon, because he would haveinherited it and then two years
later, it would be passedaccording to his will.
So that's what the whole caseturned on.
Now, one of the otherinteresting little tidbits in
this case is that the siblingSharon's sibling who was
disputing that his sister was inthis marriage-like relationship
(13:50):
, the result of which would behe gets the $3.1 million he was
appointed, along with his wife,the administrator of her estate,
uh, and had the task ofcleaning up her home.
That became important because,as it turns out, for two reasons
uh, it turns out, and nobodydisputed this Sharon was a
(14:12):
hoarder, uh, and so that meantseveral things.
One of the things that it meant, um, is that is that it took
the SIP, david, a full year,with the help of his wife, to
meticulously go through her home, which was packed with all
kinds of things she justcouldn't part with.
(14:33):
Claims made by thebeneficiaries of Dick was that
they had engaged in what'scalled spoliation, which is an
interesting term.
That legal concept ofspoliation can occur if you have
somebody who destroys evidence.
The evidence was relevant,there was legal proceedings
(14:56):
known or started or contemplated, and somebody does that
intentionally to suppressevidence, right.
It's like you know, if there'ssome key piece of evidence in a
civil case and you go and shredit, there could be an inference
drawn that, hey, you, probablyyou might have done that for a
reason, right, and there couldbe an adverse inference about
what was there.
The other reason the hoardingwas important here is that the
(15:18):
relationship between Dick andSharon, which had to be analyzed
in painstaking detail for 39pages by the judge, which is yet
one more reason why you shouldgo get your will done.
One of the things about therelationship is that they didn't
live together.
They spent a great deal of timetogether over 38 years.
She had the evidence was like akey to his apartment parking
(15:40):
spot fob uh.
They would go on long vacationsfour or eight weeks together.
Stay together in hawaii uh, youknow, they had dinner together.
Most nights he would meet forcoffee, they would play tennis.
They were, you know.
They spent lots of timetogether, but they didn't live
together, and one of the reasonsfor that also related to the
hoarding problem.
(16:02):
This was evidence that came fromDick before he passed away.
He had talked to her aboutmoving in with him, but she just
couldn't bring herself to sortthrough all of her belongings
packed into her house.
And his evidence was I couldn'tpacked into her house, and his
evidence was I couldn't moveinto that house.
It was impossible.
You could hardly move around.
(16:23):
It was so packed full of things, and so that was one of the
factual things there you canlook at.
One of the considerations is arethey in a marriage-like
relationship?
Would be.
Are they living together?
They weren't, but that was whythey would stay together when
they were in Hawaii and shewould frequently spend time in
his apartment but she justcouldn't sort her things and he
(16:45):
couldn't move in there becauseof all the junk in the house.
I mean, it's still junk stuffin the house.
Neutral term.
They also had independentfinances, right.
So that was a consideration,and the judge wound up hearing
from different witnesses whoknew them about sort of how much
time they spent together andgoing to social events together.
(17:06):
There was also an affidavitfrom Dick when he was still
alive Yet another reason why youwant to get your will done
because one of theconsiderations on these cases
would be was there an intimaterelationship between these two
people, right?
Or were they just friendshanging out a lot together?
And so he had to produce anaffidavit about their sex life
(17:27):
and how it was passionate andwhat went on there and so on,
and he also, in that context,had to acknowledge one instance
of infidelity over that 38 years, had to acknowledge one
instance of infidelity over that38 years, but otherwise
indicated that it was arelationship exclusive with one
another, and those details hadto be aired as part of this
(18:08):
analysis.
Ultimately the judge concludedthat she preferred the evidence
from witnesses about friends andso on who spent more time with
them than the plaintiff'sbrother 20 years prior to her
passing, and found as well thathis evidence in some respects
was not reliable.
Trying to cast himself in aparticular light to further his
claim, I think is really whatthe assessment would be from the
judge.
(18:28):
And so the judge preferred theevidence of other people,
including the friend who sheacknowledged had a financial
stake in it.
He was one of the beneficiariesin the will, along with the
nieces and so on nieces andnephew but found that he had
spent lots of time with themduring COVID.
He was in their sort of bubble,meals with them.
(18:51):
Great detail about the nature oftheir relationship and even
though, as I said, they didn'tlive together, they weren't
formally married, they didn'tintermingle finances.
With all of that being said, thetrial judge analyzed all of the
evidence and, of course, thatmodern reality that not all
relationships look the sameright.
(19:11):
Sometimes people, you know, havedifferent setups in their life,
and so the judge found herethat this was a marriage-like
relationship, and so the netresult of that is that Dick was
Sharon's spouse.
So Sharon didn't have a will,sharon's $3.1 million all went
to Dick.
Dick passed away a couple ofyears later, and so all of the
(19:36):
money will then be distributed,uh, in accordance with dick's
will, uh, and so all of this, Ishould say, including uh having
to engage in this litigation andair every nook and cranny of
their relationship, and so onall could have been avoided had
sharon taken the time to do up awill and indicate what her
(19:59):
wishes were.
You only get to this as adefault in terms of what occurs,
and if you wish to save all ofyour beneficiaries the angst of
engaging in expensive,time-consuming litigation and
you don't want to have all ofyour intimate affairs reported
upon in a Supreme Court decision, get a will and you can save
(20:20):
everyone a whole heck of a lotof time.
So that's the latest on thehoarding and $3.1 million estate
.
Adam Stirling (20:26):
All right, we have one minute and 40 seconds
remaining.
Michael Mulligan (20:29):
Final case, an interesting one we'll want to
pay attention to if you're avideo game player.
It is a class action which hasnow been certified against
Electronic Arts, ea, on thebasis that they are alleged to
have breached the provisions ofthe Businesses Practice and
Consumer Protection Act, whichhas provisions in it dealing
with business practices anddeceptive advertising and so
(20:52):
forth, and the particular claimbeing advanced would be an
interesting one people mayrelate to if they have kids that
play video games.
Ea, along with other companies,sell loot boxes in video games,
and a loot box is a thing whichwould contain virtual goods that
might improve your gameplay,and, in particular, they sell
(21:16):
for real money the currency topurchase these things in the
game.
And the claim, which has nowbeen certified in BC, is a claim
that they didn't properlydisclose your actual odds of
getting something good and foundthat the allegation is that you
have vanishingly small oddssomewhere between 1% and 0.1% of
(21:40):
getting what would be describedas valuable items in these loot
boxes which they're selling.
And the claim is that somepeople pay hundreds or even
thousands of dollars in realmoney to purchase these virtual
goods and they have little or nochance of getting what they're
hoping for, and so the claim isthat that's in violation of that
(22:01):
Consumer Protection, businessPractices and Consumer
Protection Act in BC, and so thelitigation will now proceed,
and if you're a loot boxpurchaser, you may well wind up
as a member of that class andmaybe there'll be some
compensation for yourunsuccessful loot box purchase.
So that's the latest on classactions and EA games.
Adam Stirling (22:24):
Michael Mulligan with Mulligan Defense Lawyers.
Legally speaking, the secondhalf of our second hour will be
Thursday, michael.
Thank you, pleasure as always.
Thanks so much.
Have a great day.
All right, you too.
It's time, as always, for our regular segment
with barrister and solicitor,with Mulligan defene lawyers.
It's Legally Speaking withMichael Mulligan.
Morning, Michael.
How are we doing?
Hey, good morning.
I'm doing great.
Always good to be here.
Some interesting items on theagenda today.
Up first, I'm seeing drugconvictions being overturned and
there's a complicated situationaround this.
One Help set this up.
Michael Mulligan (00:22):
It is complicated.
It's further fallout from avery unfortunate circumstance
with the Victoria City Police anow former officer there, former
Constable Ferris, who wasinvestigated by the RCMP
Anti-Corruption Unit, whoconcluded this is the language
from the judge that he wasbelieved to be involved in 19
(00:44):
instances of misconduct,including associating with
suspects of policeinvestigations, divulging
details of police investigationsto family members and others,
improperly accessing policedatabases, lying to
investigators, devolvingsensitive information to others.
So very serious conduct by thisformer Victoria City police
(01:08):
officer.
That's had other fallout thatpeople may be familiar with.
There was another local casewhich involved that particular
officer and then an even moreunfortunate effort to conceal
his involvement with it.
But the case that was justdealt with by the Court of
(01:32):
Appeal was a serious druginvestigation where Constable
Ferris former Constable Ferriswas one of the central
investigators and a key to thetrial.
The fact pattern was aninteresting one.
It was a fact pattern involvinga large volume of drugs of
various kinds GHB, fentanyl,mdma, methamphetamine, heroin,
(01:57):
cocaine most of which was foundin a large safe which was in an
apartment, in a large safe whichwas in an apartment, and the
issue at the trial was whetherthe accused was in possession of
the drugs located in the safeand it was ambiguous because the
accused did not own theapartment where the safe was.
(02:17):
Somebody else did.
The connection made between theaccused in the case and this
safe full of drugs turned onthat Constable Ferris.
And the fact pattern was thatin the apartment where the big
drug safe was there was asmaller safe that also had drugs
(02:37):
.
The police managed to get intothe smaller safe.
It had a key which opened thebigger safe.
However, this Constable Ferristestified that he went to the
home of the accused a differentapartment and claimed that he
found in the accused's bedroom akey to the larger safe in the
(03:01):
bedroom.
He didn't document it by takingany pictures of it and he
claimed that he found this keyand that key opened the safe.
And on the basis of ConstableFerris's evidence, the trial
judge concluded that there wassufficient evidence to prove
that the accused was inpossession of all the drugs
(03:23):
found in this big safe.
The trouble was that thatrested entirely on Constable
Ferris' not properly documentedclaim that he found the key in
the accused's apartment.
There was another officer whocould confirm that the key that
Constable Ferris somehow got didopen the big safe, but the
(03:44):
whole thing rested on Ferris.
The accused was convicted andsentenced to a significant
period of time in custody and Anappeal of that conviction was
just heard and decided by the BCCourt of Appeal and the
arguments on the appeal included.
(04:04):
First of all there should be anew trial because the whole
thing hung on Constable Ferris,who's been totally discredited.
But the second argument thatwas made was an argument that
the lawyer representing by theaccused in that case hadn't
adequately represented him inthe case and on that basis they
(04:26):
argued there was a miscarriageof justice and it's clear,
looking at the court of appealdecision, that there was reason
to be concerned about the lawyerwho had conducted that trial.
Reason to be concerned aboutthe lawyer who had conducted
that trial, and indeed thelawyer who conducted that trial
is a Victoria case.
The trial lawyer provided anaffidavit confirming that he had
(04:47):
been at the time of the trialexperiencing anxiety and
depression that had beenworsening and was subsequently
diagnosed with a majordepressive disorder.
And the lawyer acknowledgedthat he had not done various
things at the trial, includingchallenging the lawfulness of
Constable Ferris or Mr Ferrisgoing into his client's
(05:11):
apartment to allegedly find thiskey in the bedroom.
That hadn't been challenged andthe lawyer acknowledged that he
had not challenged thelawfulness of the search of the
apartment in which the big safewas found and instead the focus
was simply on whether theevidence proved that the accused
(05:31):
was in possession of what wasfound in the safe.
Ultimately, rather than in thedefense theory, he was just a
customer.
There was some there wasconnection between the accused
and rather than in the defensetheory, he was just a customer.
Uh, there was some.
There was connection betweenthe accused and this apartment
where the big drug safe wasfound somebody else's apartment,
surveillance of him, you know,coming there, so on, um, but
(05:51):
there wasn't, for example, anyevidence he had a key to the
apartment, right, um, and sothere was.
The court of appeal said thetrial judge was plainly
concerned about Mr Ferris'stestimony and that Mr Ferris was
the only witness who could linkthe key to the accused
(06:21):
apartment or parking there onvarious occasions.
The connection to him was theFerris' evidence claiming that
Ferris went into the accused'sapartment and found a key.
The key fit the safe.
Therefore the judge concludedthat that was good evidence that
the accused was in possessionof what was in the safe and on
the other hand, for example, inthat apartment with the big safe
and all the drugs, there wasother drugs GHB kept in the
freezer Maybe that's where youkeep GHB.
(06:42):
And the judge said well, we'renot satisfied that the accused
was in possession of the drugsin the safe or in the fridge,
sorry, in somebody else'sapartment, right.
And so the entire thing hung onFerris, and so ultimately here
the court of Appeal allowed theappeal and they allowed the
(07:02):
appeal and the Crown agreed thatthe appeal should be allowed.
Just concluding that, yeah, theCrown agreed that the way the
case was defended notchallenging the search for the
key alleged to have been foundin the person's apartment, the
accused's apartment, or thesearch of the apartment where
the drugs were found, for whichthere was apparently a warrant,
but sometimes there can be areview of whether the warrant
(07:25):
should have been issued thosethings just weren't done and it
sounds like as a result of themental disorder, the major
depressive disorder that thedefense counsel was suffering
from, and so a very unfortunatestate of affairs.
(07:46):
Really, the origin of all ofthis is former Constable Ferris
right, and the misconduct thathe was determined to have been
involved in by that RCMPanti-corruption investigation of
him the other background ofConstable Ferris listeners may
recall is that that sameConstable Ferris was being
investigated for criminal orthat kind of conduct and they
(08:07):
left him on the job workingwhile he was being investigated
so as not to tip him off, and hehad been involved in a serious
investigation including firearms.
Including firearms.
And then, after Ferris was, Iguess, they concluded that
investigation and he wasdetermined to have engaged in
(08:27):
that conduct and removed fromthe department.
The Victoria Police, veryunfortunately, in that
investigation that he'd beeninvolved with, claimed to end
that investigation and four dayslater restart what amounted to
exactly the same investigation,without revealing that Ferris
had anything to do with it, totry to remove the taint that
(08:48):
would be created by having thisperson who was himself under
investigation at the time.
He was the investigator, andthat didn't fly either, and so
the tale of wreckage that formerConstable Ferris has left has
not yet ended his entiresentence in the time it took to
(09:25):
get from that conviction in 2019to now at the end of 2024.
So we have a circumstance wherea man who may have been innocent
has spent a significant periodof time in prison on the
strength of the evidence fromConstable Ferris, and so I guess
one of the takeaways from allof this is sort of the
importance of, you know,diligent work by defense counsel
(09:45):
to try to make sure that thiskind of thing doesn't happen.
Whether, if those things werechallenged right the Ferris's
claim about the lawfulness ofFerris's claim that he went into
this man's apartment and foundthe magic key Whether that would
have revealed the problem andwhat was going on with him
earlier, we do not know.
But in any case that's morelegal wreckage caused by that
(10:12):
officer or former officer and itjust shows you how, if the
system doesn't manage to detectthese things, just how much harm
can occur.
So that's the latest from theCourt of Appeal and the latest
on the wreckage left behind byformer Constable Ferris of the
Victoria Police Department.
Adam Stirling (10:31):
All right, we'll take a quick break.
Legally Speaking with MichaelMulligan will continue right
after this.
Legally Speaking continues onCFAX 1070 with Michael Mulligan
from Mulligan Defense Lawyers.
Our next battle matter, michael, it says with no will, who
receives a $3.1 million estatemight turn on whether the
deceased was in quote amarriage-like relationship.
(10:53):
What happened?
Michael Mulligan (10:55):
Well, the first thing that everyone should
remember when they hear thisstory is go get your will done.
So this was a story involvingtwo people, dick and Sharon.
Sharon was originally fromVictoria, as it turns out, and
these two met many years ago 38years.
(11:15):
They had a relationshiptogether.
They originally met at theJericho Tennis Club over in
Vancouver and neither of themhad any children and didn't have
any children during the courseof their relationship.
And after this 38-yearrelationship, sharon sadly
passed away.
Sharon sadly passed away andshe was, at the time, 79.
(11:40):
And Dick was 86.
And so, without a will, there'sa section of the Wills, estates
and Succession Act it's section20 for those keeping score at
home that provides that ifsomebody dies without a will and
if they have no children, theirestate passes to their spouse.
Well, sometimes that's clear,other times it's not.
(12:01):
Here, these two are not married, but the legal assessment is
whether they were in amarriage-like relationship.
What's that?
In 2024?
And so this case turned on.
And then so what happened isSharon passed away, and then,
(12:23):
not too long after, a couple ofyears later, before the case was
decided in 2022, dick passedaway, and so the issue then
became who gets the money.
Sharon had one sibling okay, hewas the person who was starting
this litigation and if Sharonwas not in a marriage-like
(12:44):
relationship, then a differentsection of the Wills, estates
and Succession Act when thereare no children and no spouse,
everything goes to the siblings.
So he would get the three plusmillion dollars.
Right, that's the base for thelitigation.
On the other hand, if they werein a marriage-like relationship
after Sharon's passing, maybeDick learned from Sharon's what
(13:07):
was going on with Sharon.
Dick made a will and he made awill providing that one-fifth of
his estate would go to a goodfriend that he spent time with
at the tennis club and the restof his estate would go to his
three nieces and nephews,because he didn't have any
children, and his estate wouldinclude, if there was a
marriage-like relationship, thethree plus million dollars from
(13:30):
Sharon, because he would haveinherited it and then two years
later, it would be passedaccording to his will.
So that's what the whole caseturned on.
Now, one of the otherinteresting little tidbits in
this case is that the siblingSharon's sibling who was
disputing that his sister was inthis marriage-like relationship
(13:50):
, the result of which would behe gets the $3.1 million he was
appointed, along with his wife,the administrator of her estate,
uh, and had the task ofcleaning up her home.
That became important because,as it turns out, for two reasons
uh, it turns out, and nobodydisputed this Sharon was a
(14:12):
hoarder, uh, and so that meantseveral things.
One of the things that it meant, um, is that is that it took
the SIP, david, a full year,with the help of his wife, to
meticulously go through her home, which was packed with all
kinds of things she justcouldn't part with.
(14:33):
Claims made by thebeneficiaries of Dick was that
they had engaged in what'scalled spoliation, which is an
interesting term.
That legal concept ofspoliation can occur if you have
somebody who destroys evidence.
The evidence was relevant,there was legal proceedings
(14:56):
known or started or contemplated, and somebody does that
intentionally to suppressevidence, right.
It's like you know, if there'ssome key piece of evidence in a
civil case and you go and shredit, there could be an inference
drawn that, hey, you, probablyyou might have done that for a
reason, right, and there couldbe an adverse inference about
what was there.
The other reason the hoardingwas important here is that the
(15:18):
relationship between Dick andSharon, which had to be analyzed
in painstaking detail for 39pages by the judge, which is yet
one more reason why you shouldgo get your will done.
One of the things about therelationship is that they didn't
live together.
They spent a great deal of timetogether over 38 years.
She had the evidence was like akey to his apartment parking
(15:40):
spot fob uh.
They would go on long vacationsfour or eight weeks together.
Stay together in hawaii uh, youknow, they had dinner together.
Most nights he would meet forcoffee, they would play tennis.
They were, you know.
They spent lots of timetogether, but they didn't live
together, and one of the reasonsfor that also related to the
hoarding problem.
(16:02):
This was evidence that came fromDick before he passed away.
He had talked to her aboutmoving in with him, but she just
couldn't bring herself to sortthrough all of her belongings
packed into her house.
And his evidence was I couldn'tpacked into her house, and his
evidence was I couldn't moveinto that house.
It was impossible.
You could hardly move around.
(16:23):
It was so packed full of things, and so that was one of the
factual things there you canlook at.
One of the considerations is arethey in a marriage-like
relationship?
Would be.
Are they living together?
They weren't, but that was whythey would stay together when
they were in Hawaii and shewould frequently spend time in
his apartment but she justcouldn't sort her things and he
(16:45):
couldn't move in there becauseof all the junk in the house.
I mean, it's still junk stuffin the house.
Neutral term.
They also had independentfinances, right.
So that was a consideration,and the judge wound up hearing
from different witnesses whoknew them about sort of how much
time they spent together andgoing to social events together.
(17:06):
There was also an affidavitfrom Dick when he was still
alive Yet another reason why youwant to get your will done
because one of theconsiderations on these cases
would be was there an intimaterelationship between these two
people, right?
Or were they just friendshanging out a lot together?
And so he had to produce anaffidavit about their sex life
(17:27):
and how it was passionate andwhat went on there and so on,
and he also, in that context,had to acknowledge one instance
of infidelity over that 38 years, had to acknowledge one
instance of infidelity over that38 years, but otherwise
indicated that it was arelationship exclusive with one
another, and those details hadto be aired as part of this
(18:08):
analysis.
Ultimately the judge concludedthat she preferred the evidence
from witnesses about friends andso on who spent more time with
them than the plaintiff'sbrother 20 years prior to her
passing, and found as well thathis evidence in some respects
was not reliable.
Trying to cast himself in aparticular light to further his
claim, I think is really whatthe assessment would be from the
judge.
(18:28):
And so the judge preferred theevidence of other people,
including the friend who sheacknowledged had a financial
stake in it.
He was one of the beneficiariesin the will, along with the
nieces and so on nieces andnephew but found that he had
spent lots of time with themduring COVID.
He was in their sort of bubble,meals with them.
(18:51):
Great detail about the nature oftheir relationship and even
though, as I said, they didn'tlive together, they weren't
formally married, they didn'tintermingle finances.
With all of that being said, thetrial judge analyzed all of the
evidence and, of course, thatmodern reality that not all
relationships look the sameright.
(19:11):
Sometimes people, you know, havedifferent setups in their life,
and so the judge found herethat this was a marriage-like
relationship, and so the netresult of that is that Dick was
Sharon's spouse.
So Sharon didn't have a will,sharon's $3.1 million all went
to Dick.
Dick passed away a couple ofyears later, and so all of the
(19:36):
money will then be distributed,uh, in accordance with dick's
will, uh, and so all of this, Ishould say, including uh having
to engage in this litigation andair every nook and cranny of
their relationship, and so onall could have been avoided had
sharon taken the time to do up awill and indicate what her
(19:59):
wishes were.
You only get to this as adefault in terms of what occurs,
and if you wish to save all ofyour beneficiaries the angst of
engaging in expensive,time-consuming litigation and
you don't want to have all ofyour intimate affairs reported
upon in a Supreme Court decision, get a will and you can save
(20:20):
everyone a whole heck of a lotof time.
So that's the latest on thehoarding and $3.1 million estate
.
Adam Stirling (20:26):
All right, we have one minute and 40 seconds
remaining.
Michael Mulligan (20:29):
Final case, an interesting one we'll want to
pay attention to if you're avideo game player.
It is a class action which hasnow been certified against
Electronic Arts, ea, on thebasis that they are alleged to
have breached the provisions ofthe Businesses Practice and
Consumer Protection Act, whichhas provisions in it dealing
with business practices anddeceptive advertising and so
(20:52):
forth, and the particular claimbeing advanced would be an
interesting one people mayrelate to if they have kids that
play video games.
Ea, along with other companies,sell loot boxes in video games,
and a loot box is a thing whichwould contain virtual goods that
might improve your gameplay,and, in particular, they sell
(21:16):
for real money the currency topurchase these things in the
game.
And the claim, which has nowbeen certified in BC, is a claim
that they didn't properlydisclose your actual odds of
getting something good and foundthat the allegation is that you
have vanishingly small oddssomewhere between 1% and 0.1% of
(21:40):
getting what would be describedas valuable items in these loot
boxes which they're selling.
And the claim is that somepeople pay hundreds or even
thousands of dollars in realmoney to purchase these virtual
goods and they have little or nochance of getting what they're
hoping for, and so the claim isthat that's in violation of that
(22:01):
Consumer Protection, businessPractices and Consumer
Protection Act in BC, and so thelitigation will now proceed,
and if you're a loot boxpurchaser, you may well wind up
as a member of that class andmaybe there'll be some
compensation for yourunsuccessful loot box purchase.
So that's the latest on classactions and EA games.
Adam Stirling (22:24):
Michael Mulligan with Mulligan Defense Lawyers.
Legally speaking, the secondhalf of our second hour will be
Thursday, michael.
Thank you, pleasure as always.
Thanks 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!