On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released judgment in the case Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia where the court recognized and outlined a new “tort” or civil cause of action called “intimate partner violence”.

The court described this new tort of intimate partner violence as follows:

“Best understood, it is not confined to conduct that inflicts physical or psychological injury, but includes all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy.

This includes egregious acts of physical and psychological violence, as well as tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap intimate partners. In the instant case, it is recognized that the husband’s liability rests on the new tort of intimate partner violence.”

The Supreme Court of Canada differentiated this new tort from the existing torts of assault and battery, which would apply to physical violence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which would apply to psychological and emotional violence so outrageous that it causes a recognizable mental illness. Instead, the tort of intimate partner violence focused on coercive actions that cause a loss of autonomy for the intimate partner.

The court had this to say about the basis of compensation payable for this new tort:

“The harm experienced by the wife from coercive control, including that associated with her dignity, autonomy, and equality should fall fully under general compensatory damages for the tortious conduct of intimate partner violence.”

From this it appears that the compensation will be similar to non-pecuniary damages in injury claims, except instead of focusing on the effect of injuries on a person’s life, the court will focus on the effect on a person’s dignity, autonomy, and equality.

The court explicitly took the time to recognize in the judgment that intimate partner violence is being predominantly perpetrated by men against women.

This decision, in our view, is an important recognition by our highest court of the serious issue of intimate partner violence that exists in our society but that does not necessarily extend to extreme acts of physical or psychological violence covered by other torts.

The full text of the decision can be located here: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia – SCC Cases

Make sure to contact one of our experienced lawyers at Carter Litigation if you think you may have been the victim of intimate partner violence to learn whether this new tort may apply to your situation.

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

The death of a loved one is one of the most traumatic experiences that anyone can go through.

Not only are you dealing with the grief and shock and emotions of your loved one dying but now someone has to deal with a mountain of administrative and legal tasks, such as notifying financial institutions and government authorities, dealing with wills and assets, and obtaining a death certificate.

The Government of Canada has a helpful checklist of some of the many different tasks someone dealing with a loved one’s death will have to deal with. We attach a link to the checklist here: After a Death Checklist

At Carter Litigation, we can assist with both understanding and dealing with many of the legal and administrative tasks, such as probating the estate, assisting with notifying various parties, and providing advice as to how to navigate any difficulties you might encounter on the way.

Contact one of our lawyers to see how we can help you.

Call for more information: 604.380.3517

When terminating an employee without just cause in most cases an employer is required to give that employee reasonable notice or pay in lieu of reasonable notice.

For a discussion of reasonable notice, follow the link to our blog post on common law notice here: Common Law Notice in British Columbia – Carter Litigation

The option to provide reasonable notice or pay in lieu of reasonable notice is entirely the choice of the employer.

If the employer chooses to give reasonable notice rather than paying the employee an amount equivalent to that, this is referred to as “working notice”. Paying out an amount equivalent to the notice period on termination is commonly referred to as “severance pay”.

There are pros and cons to the employer of each of the approaches.

One advantage to the employer of giving working notice is that the employer actually gets something of value in return for the money the employee is paid over the working notice period, in that the employee continues to provide their labour over that period of time.

Another advantage is that if the employee finds another job over the working notice period and quits to start that job, then the employer is not required to provide any more notice or pay in lieu of notice as the employee has voluntarily left their employment.

The downside to working notice is that most employees are not going to go the “extra mile” in terms of their work ethic if they know their job is coming to an end. Also, in extreme circumstances, a disgruntled employee who still has access to the employer’s computer systems, financial systems, or customer lists, as a few examples, could do considerable damage to a business if they chose to sabotage it. In a less extreme example, an employee on working notice could bring down the morale of other employees.

The main advantage of paying out notice right away is that it avoids all the potential problems just mentioned as the employment relationship immediately comes to an end and the employee no longer has access in any way to the employer’s business.

The primary downside to paying severance is that it can be a significant financial liability for the company, particularly in the case of long term employees.

Because of the pros and cons discussed above, in most cases immediate termination and paying severance pay make the most sense for the employer.

However, in cases where a company has a very long term employee making a good wage where the amount of notice required to pay out might be quite high, then  it might make sense to consider using working notice, especially if things are ending with that employee on good terms and the employee is one whose character can be trusted not to sabotage the business.

The requirements for providing working notice are legally specific and the notice must be given in wrting. Also, if an employee stays on and works even one day after the working notice period is up that will legally reset the employment and notice will have to be given again and will start again (basically the clock is reset). For these reasons, we recommend you consult with a lawyer like Robert Carter before attempting to provide working notice as a strategy if you are an employer.    

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

Just the other day a number of children were injured in an electrical incident at the Cultus Lake Water Slides. In some online commentary about whether the children could sue Cultus Lake Water Slides someone raised the issue that everyone who attends the waterslides has to have their parent agree to a waiver of liability.

This raises the question as to whether a parent can contractually waive liability on behalf of their child.

Generally speaking, due to the principle of freedom of contract, an adult can sign a waiver as a part of a contract to partake in a recreational or sporting activity in British Columbia and the courts will uphold the waiver as long as it is clearly worded and the fact the person is signing something that might affect their legal rights is properly brought to the person’s attention in the document.

When it comes to children’s activities such a My Gym, waterslides, trampoline parks, sports teams etc. parents are routinely asked to sign or agree online to waivers of liability on behalf of their children that purport to waive away all rights of the child to bring a personal injury claim against the business.

This very issue came up in the case of Wong v. Lok’s Martial Arts Centre Inc., 2009 BCSC 1385. In this case, a 12 year old boy was injured in a sparring match at a Hapkido martial arts school. The mother has a signed a membership form on behalf of the child that included wording that released the school for liability for injuries of any students while attending the school. The martial arts school argued that this document signed by the mother on behalf of the boy was binding on the boy and so therefore the case should be dismissed outright.

The court disagreed. After a careful review of the Infants Act [RSBC 1996] C. 223, which governs the ability of parents to enter into contracts on behalf of their children, the court said that this act “does not permit a parent or guardian to bind an infant to an agreement waiving the infant’s right to bring an action in damages in tort”.

This means it is impossible for a parent (or any other adult) to waive the rights of any child under 19 years old to make an injury claim for the negligence of others. It should also be noted that this same act also strictly curtails the ability of a minor to enter into contractual relations themselves, so it would also be unenforceable to have the minor sign the contract instead of the parent.

The take away is that parents can sign away on the liability waiver forms for their kid’s activities, as the waivers are not worth the paper they are written on when it comes to waiving liability on behalf of a minor.

If you have questions, or if your child has been injured in an accident, seek help from a qualified personal injury lawyer like Robert Carter as soon as possible.     

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

We are pleased to offer expanded Solicitor services at Carter Litigation for Maple Ridge, the Fraser Valley, and surrounding areas.

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517 or send us an email: info@carterlitigation.com

Under the Builder’s Lien Act of BC, anyone who provides labour and materials for construction of an “improvement” (i.e. A building or other construction project) on land is entitled to place a lien against the land if they are not paid.

This is a powerful tool that can help an unpaid contractor or subcontractor get paid, as it prevents the owner of the land from selling or refinancing the land without dealing with the lien. In addition, construction financing will not advance any more draws to an owner or developer until a lien is dealt with.

However, there are time limits that must be strictly followed in order to have the right to file and enforce a builder’s lien.

The time limit is 45 days from the earlier of a variety of events, these events being:

1. Issuance of a certificate of completion with respect to a contract or subcontract. The certificate of completion is a piece of paper in a specified format that notifies other persons that the work under the contract or subcontract is completed. It must be sent to certain individuals and also has to be posted on the job site in a conspicuous place.

2. Completion of the head contract or of the improvement if no head contractor is engaged. This means that if there is a general contractor for a project hired by the owner then 45 days from the completion of that contract. If there is no general contractor, then it is 45 days from the completion of the overall construction project. “Completion” is defined under the Builder’s Lien Act as being 97% of the work is done, or even slightly more than that depending on the overall value of the contract. This trigger is very important to keep in mind because on a larger construction project, which trade is involved will greatly change this trigger. For instance, the formwork contractor pouring the foundations may have literally years before the head contract comes to completion. However, the painting contractor may have very little time or the project could even be completed under the definition of the act before they are even done working.

3. Abandonment of the head contact or improvement if no head contract. While there is no specific definition of abandonment under the Builder’ s Lien Act, a good example would be where the contractor is not getting paid by the owner and says “I am out of here because I haven’t been paid” and pulls all of their forces of off the project with no intention to return. The head contract or project is deemed to be abandoned under the Builder’s Lien Act if no work is done for 30 days.

4. Termination of the head contract. “Termination” is also not defined under the Builder’s Lien Act and generally is determined by looking at the terms of the contract. Usually, the owner would issue written notice of termination setting out the reasons why.

5. If the construction project is a strata, then 45 days from when the strata lot is sold to a purchaser. This trigger is designed to protect new strata purchasers from being on the hook related to liens incurred by the developer, after a set amount of time.

As the above shows, the exact 45 day cut off date can be tricky to determine depending on the facts of the situation, so generally it is advisable to contact an experienced Construction Law lawyer like Robert Carter as soon as possible if you think you may want to file a lien claim, so the time limit is not missed.

You should also contact a lawyer even if you think a lien time limit has been missed, as you may still have contract rights and/or a separate lien against holdback money the owner and contractors are obligated to retain, called a “Shimco” lien.     

Call us for more information:

Temporary Suspension of Employment Insurance Deductions and Overpayments and How that Affects Your Severance Pay

Effective March 30, 2025, the Carney Government instituted a number of temporary changes to how Employment Insurance in Canada works. The changes were designed to bring economic relief to workers whose jobs have been lost due to the ongoing trade war with the United States, although they apply to all workers in Canada.

One of the changes has to do with the allocation of earnings from separation from employment. Before these changes, if a terminated employee was paid a severance package, normally this payment would be allocated to a number of weeks or months and the employee would not be entitled to collect Employment Insurance until this time period was up. For instance, if an employee was paid 2 months of severance pay, then they would not be entitled to be paid Employment Insurance until that 2 months was up.

Under the changes, the 2 months severance would not be deducted and therefore would not postpone the employee receiving Employment Insurance benefits. Put another way, the employee gets paid the severance and Employment Insurance for that same period of time.

This change is temporary and currently applies between March 30, 2025 and October 10, 2026. This time period applies to when a claim is made or when an allocation starts.

The allocation wording is important because if an employee gets paid severance down the road after a law suit for wrongful dismissal, then normally the employee would have to report that payment to the government and would have to repay the government Employment Insurance paid over the period of time the severance pay was allocated to. So if the employee got paid 2 months notice after a law suit, then they would have to report that and pay back two months’ worth of Employment Insurance payments. The temporary changes suspend this and the employee would not have to pay back the overpayment.

Because the word allocation is used, this means this temporary change could apply even if the employee did not file an Employment Insurance claim by October 10, 2026, as long as the severance payment was allocated to a period of time before that. For example, if an employee was terminated on October 9, 2026 and got a severance payment of 2 months, but then did not apply for Employment Insurance until December 10, 2026, they would still be entitled to keep the full severance payment without deducting Employment Insurance because the amount would start to be allocated to the day after termination, being October 10, 2026.

The wording also means that as long as a claim is made or an allocation is made during that period of time, then the temporary measure would apply. So if an employee got one year of severance and made a claim on October 1, 2026, then they would be entitled to “keep” the entire year of severance and continue to receive Employment Insurance, it would not cut off on October 10, 2026.

Given theses temporary measures are in response to job instability from the trade war, if Canada has not achieved a resolution of this issue by October 10, 2026, then it is possible these benefits could be extended.

The temporary measures also include waiving the waiting period and extending the number of entitlement weeks for long time employees. The government’s information page on the issue is linked here: Temporary Employment Insurance measures to respond to major changes in economic conditions – Canada.ca

Why are these changes important? For employees, it may make pursuing a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal make more economic sense, if the employee does not have to pay back Employment Insurance benefits as an overpayment.  For employers, the fact that a severance doesn’t have to deducted from Employment Insurance could be used as a negotiating tactic to get an employee to accept less severance than they may have otherwise and should be highlighted by the employer in termination negotiations.

If you have questions about these changes, do not hesitate to contact an experienced Employment lawyer like Robert Carter.

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

Dying Without a Will in British Columbia – Intestacy

We, as humans, tend to project our greatest fears onto the things we don’t understand and often presume the worst-case scenario. In saying that, I mean it is commonly believed that if a person dies without having a will, the entire estate is taken by the provincial government. However, the reality is far more structured and much more complex.

In British Columbia, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), governs how estates are managed and distributed upon death. Part 3 of WESA sets out the mandatory distribution scheme which determines how the estate is to be distributed when an intestate dies leaving:

1. A spouse and no surviving descendants:
   – The entire estate must be distributed to spouse (section 20 of WESA);

2. A spouse and surviving descendants (descendant being of both deceased and surviving spouse):
   – Spouse: $300,000 preferential share (section 21(3) of WESA); household furnishings (section 21(2) of WESA); and right to acquire spousal home within 180 days after the representation grant (section 27(2) of WESA)
   – Residue: half to spouse and half to intestate’s descendants (section 21(6) of WESA).

3. A spouse and descendants not common to intestate and spouse:
   – Spouse: $150,000 preferential share (section 21(4) of WESA); household furnishings; and right to acquire spousal home within 180 days after the representation grant
   – Residue: half to spouse and half to intestate’s descendants.

4. Multiple spouses:
   – Spousal share divided as agreed between them or if an agreement cannot be reached, as determined by the court (section 22 of WESA).
5. Surviving descendants but no spouse:
   – Equally amongst all descendants (section 23(2) of WESA).

What’s Escheat?

If someone dies without a will and has no living relatives, their property undergoes “escheat,” meaning it passes to the provincial government under section 23(2)(f) of WESA. However, individuals with a moral or legal claim to the estate may apply to the Lieutenant Governor under the Escheat Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 120) to request the return of some or all the property.

Presumption against Intestacy

The presumption against intestacy is a judicial principle that the courts follow when dealing with cases related to the interpretation of wills. In essence, it means that if a will is unclear or can be interpreted in two different ways, the court will follow the one that will result in the full distribution of the estate rather than following the rules of the intestacy. However, this golden rule doesn’t exist without limitations. In the case of The Estate of Lorne A. Campbell, 2005 BCSC 1561, the court noted that an intestacy may be found when it becomes apparent that the testator simply did not think about the circumstances that may arise in the future and found that the will was silent about the matters in issue.

To avoid any misinterpretations or challenges to your will in the future, please contact Riya Singh.

Call us for more information: 604.380.3517

Most employers and employees know about the Employment Standards Act, and that when an employee is fired by an employer in circumstances without employee misconduct, the employer has to give or pay the employee notice of roughly 1 week per year of employment up to a maximum of 8 weeks (it varies a bit from this format in the first 2 years of employment).

But did you know that an employee can be entitled to more notice under the common law?

Under the common law, which is made from judges’ decisions over time, an employer has to pay or give an employee “reasonable notice” if the employer fires them in circumstances without employee misconduct.

The court calculates what is reasonable notice by considering the “Bardal Factors.”  These factors are:

1. The age of the employee (generally if the employee is nearing retirement age this will factor in to a longer notice period);

2. The duration of employment (the longer the employment the longer the notice period);

3. The degree of responsibility of the position (generally the more responsibility and difficulty associated with the job, the longer the notice period); and

4. The availability of similar employment (if you are in a niche job where there aren’t any other jobs, then a longer notice period would be required than for a job with lots of job opportunities, such as sales).

The court says there is no set reasonable notice period and each case will be decided individually depending on the Bardal Factors. While there is therefore no set “notice period.” most awards trend to about 1 month per year of service under the common law versus 1 week per year of service under the Employment Standards Act. However, each case varies so it is important to get qualified legal advice from a lawyer unique to the facts of your specific situation.

Call us for more information:

A personal injury claim is where someone has been injured due to the intentional or negligent acts of another person or company.

When someone is injured and it is legally some other person or company’s fault, then they can pursue a law suit to get compensation for their injuries.

Generally speaking there are a few main types of claims for compensation that the injured person can make. These are called “heads of damages.” Think of these as a legally created “box” that the person claiming injury has to put their claim into in order to be legally entitled to compensation for it.

The main heads of damages are as follows:

1. Non-pecuniary damages: Most people have heard this type of damages referred to as compensation for pain and suffering. This is an amount of money to reflect the unpleasant nature of an injury and the pain associated with it as well as the impact on your day to day life. A judge has broad discretion in making an award for pain and suffering and generally will look at past court decisions involving similar injuries.

2. Past Income Loss: This is a claim for any money someone has lost because they were unable to work due to their injuries. A person making this claim has to show that their injuries stopped them from working, as opposed to some other reason.

3. Future Loss of Capacity: This is a claim for how someone’s injury may affect their ability to work in the future. This could be a claim for what the person would have made over their working life, if the person is completely disabled from working for life due to injuries, or it could be an amount to reflect that the person’s injuries make them less able to do certain types of jobs or limit them to part time work, for instance.

4. Special Damages: This is a claim for anything an injured person is out of pocket paying for. Usually this comes in the form of fees to get treatments not covered by universal Canadian healthcare, such as physiotherapy or massage therapy. This claim could also be for the cost to replace personal items damaged in an event that caused an injury, like if the force of falling broke someone’s watch. A person making this claim needs to have receipts for these costs in order to make a claim.

5. Future Costs of Care: If any injured person needs ongoing assistance or care, they can make a claim for the future costs of this.

There are certain other types of claims that a person can make in an injury claim, but the above are the most common.

Compensation is based on the individual facts of each case and you should consult a lawyer like Robert Carter if you are injured and want to know how much compensation you may be entitled to.

Call us for help: