Double Diamond Law - Squamish / Whistler, BC

10/20/2026

The new lawsuit advances a straightforward argument: Even if Section 338 survives legal scrutiny, the administration failed to satisfy the law’s requirements when it targeted Canada.

Under the statute, the lawsuit argues, tariffs are permitted “only upon finding ‘as a fact’” that a foreign country imposes unequal and unreasonable charges or trade restrictions on U.S. products, or otherwise uses customs rules to unfairly disadvantage the United States.

Even when those conditions are met, the law limits the president’s authority. He may impose only such duties “as he shall determine will offset such burden or disadvantage,” the complaint states.

According to Gellert Global, the Canadian actions cited in Trump’s proclamations do not meet that standard.

Two of the cited actions, the lawsuit contends, are Canada’s responses to tariffs imposed by Trump himself, including measures the Supreme Court has ruled unlawful. Retaliation against U.S. trade measures, the company argues, is not the same as discrimination against American goods.

The other major issue involves dairy quotas negotiated under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the trilateral trade deal between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Far from disadvantaging American producers, those terms “give American cheese better access to Canada than the cheese of most of the world receives,” the lawsuit states.

In other words, the complaint argues, the administration is using a law designed to address discriminatory foreign trade practices to punish Canada for actions that do not meet the legal standard.

A new lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges President Donald Trump’s use of a nearly century-old law to impose sweeping 50% tariffs on Canadian goods, raising fresh questions about the legality of his aggressive trade tactics.

In July, Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose steep duties on Canadian hockey sticks, w**e, honey, wigs, and other products, citing alleged trade discrimination by Ottawa. The move marked the first time in the law’s 96-year history that it had been used to impose tariffs.

Now, Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey-based food importer, is fighting back. The company says its cheeses are subject to the tariffs and is asking the court to declare them unlawful, block their enforcement, and order the Trump administration to refund duties already collected, with interest.

The case is being brought by the Liberty Justice Center, the same legal organization that scored a major victory against Trump’s trade agenda by successfully challenging his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs.

The new lawsuit advances a straightforward argument: Even if Section 338 survives legal scrutiny, the administration failed to satisfy the law’s requirements when it targeted Canada.

Under the statute, the lawsuit argues, tariffs are permitted “only upon finding ‘as a fact’” that a foreign country imposes unequal and unreasonable charges or trade restrictions on U.S. products, or otherwise uses customs rules to unfairly disadvantage the United States.

Even when those conditions are met, the law limits the president’s authority. He may impose only such duties “as he shall determine will offset such burden or disadvantage,” the complaint states.

According to Gellert Global, the Canadian actions cited in Trump’s proclamations do not meet that standard.

Two of the cited actions, the lawsuit contends, are Canada’s responses to tariffs imposed by Trump himself, including measures the Supreme Court has ruled unlawful. Retaliation against U.S. trade measures, the company argues, is not the same as discrimination against American goods.

The other major issue involves dairy quotas negotiated under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the trilateral trade deal between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Far from disadvantaging American producers, those terms “give American cheese better access to Canada than the cheese of most of the world receives,” the lawsuit states.

In other words, the complaint argues, the administration is using a law designed to address discriminatory foreign trade practices to punish Canada for actions that do not meet the legal standard.

The financial stakes are enormous. Under the Section 338 tariffs, Gellert Global says it now pays a 50% duty on the entered value of its Canadian cheese, adding an estimated $40 million a year to its costs.

That is a steep price for a company to pay under a policy whose legal foundation is now being challenged in court.

At its core, the lawsuit asks a fundamental question: Can a president wield a decades-old trade law to impose punishing tariffs without meeting the very conditions Congress established?

For Gellert Global, and for Canada, the answer should be no.

Do you think the Liberal Justice Center will be successful in scoring another victory? Drop your thoughts below.

10/16/2026

TODAY OUT OF THE Supreme Court of Canada: Is it ever acceptable to question a witness about her prior s*xual history?

"The Supreme Court of Canada says a complainant’s previous s*xual activity can be admissible in trials for s*xual services and human trafficking offences.

Section 276 of the Criminal Code introduces rules that limit when evidence of past s*xual activity can be used in trials for certain offences. This case is about whether those rules apply to trials involving s*xual services and human trafficking offences.

Two men were accused of having acted as pimps for the complainant. During a two-and-a-half-year period, she worked out of a house they rented, among other places. They were charged with several s*xual services and human trafficking offences. Before trial, they asked to cross-examine (question) the complainant about her previous s*x work. They said their questions would focus on the financial and advertising aspects of her work, rather than its s*xual nature.

The trial judge concluded that section 276 of the Criminal Code applied to the case and the accused could not question the complainant about her previous s*x work. ... (T)he two men were convicted of advertising the complainant’s s*xual services for money, recruiting and controlling her, and receiving a material benefit from her s*xual services. However, they were acquitted of the human trafficking offences. The two men appealed ...

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed their appeals and ordered new trials on the s*xual services offences. It concluded ... the trial judge improperly restricted the accused’s questioning of the complainant. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The trial judge should not have prevented the accused from questioning the complainant about the commercial aspects of her previous s*x work.
.. Justice Moreau explained section 276 of the Criminal Code does not categorically apply to s*xual services and human trafficking offences. This section is intended to prevent courts or a jury from relying on evidence that support the twin myths, or the historical myths that unchaste women are more likely to consent to the s*xual activity or are less worthy of belief. However ... not all evidence of prior s*xual history is irrelevant or inadmissible. In some cases, a judge can reach conclusions from the evidence of a complainant’s prior s*xual history that are not prejudicial ...

Here, the evidence that the accused wanted to introduce concerned the commercial nature of the complainant’s previous s*x work, rather than its s*xual nature. It was intended to show that the complainant had previously chosen to work in the s*x trade voluntarily, rather than having been recruited or exploited by the accused. ... (T)he accused should not have been prevented from questioning the complainant about the commercial aspects of her previous s*x work."

A Case in Brief is a short summary of a written decision of the Court, drafted in plain language. These summaries are prepared by staff of the Supreme Court of Canada. They do not form part of the Court’s reasons for judgment and are not for use in legal proceedings.

10/15/2026

10/07/2026

NANAIMO — A longtime paid-on-call North Cedar Fire Department member’s dismissal was discrimination due to his mental disability, ruled the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

The recently published ruling outlined the case between Joseph Widdifield and North Cedar Improvement District (NCID), following the complainant’s July 2, 2021, termination while he was on a three-month leave.

While the NCID denied Widdifield’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was a factor in the firing, the tribunal was not persuaded NCID fulfilled its duty to accommodate the complainant’s condition.

Widdifield had been a paid-on-call firefighter with the department for eight years, beginning in 2013.

Facts of the case heard Widdifield was a valued firefighter with an unblemished record, aside from damaging a fire truck he was operating while pulling into the fire hall.

In 2021, Widdifield’s superiors began having concerns about his off-duty conduct based on reports from the members of the public.

Those concerns included the complainant laughing and cursing at neighbours when they approached him about igniting late-night fireworks, sending a threatening text message to his ex-wife’s friend, and initiating an “aggressive” exchange with staff at his children’s school resulting in a shelter in place.

“Mr. Widdifield told me that because of his PTSD, he struggles with emotional control when he is hyper-aroused, as he was during the incidents. At that time, Mr. Widdifield’s PTSD was aggravated in part due to stressors arising from his divorce,” wrote HRT tribunal member Robin Dean.

Widdifield was placed on leave on May 11, 2021, after being confronted by members of the fire department leadership team.

Mandatory counselling sessions were imposed and to be completed during the leave.

The HRT ruling stated while on leave and prior to counselling sessions commencing, another report was made from a teacher at Widdifield’s children’s school indicating he had “threatened, harassed, and intimidated her.”

“As a result of this report, which Mr. Widdifield’s superiors viewed as a breach of the Code of Conduct, Mr. Widdifield’s employment was terminated without further discussion or investigation. Mr. Widdifield appealed the decision within the NCID but was unsuccessful.”

Dean’s HRT ruling “easily” found the complainant’s PTSD factored into his termination.

NCID argued it had to terminate Widdifield, pointing to its Code of Conduct, stating the public must be able to maintain trust in its firefighters.

The HRT was satisfied Widdififeld sufficiently explained he was experiencing disability-related barriers in meeting the standards of conduct required by his employment.

“It triggered the accommodation process. NCID was required to take all reasonable and practical steps to address those barriers before firing Mr. Widdifield, NCID failed to meet this requirement.”

Widdifield successfully sought $35,000 for injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The ruling, which referenced Widdifield was emotional as were his friends and family members who testified, stating he transitioned from joyful and happy to quiet and someone who keeps to himself.

10/03/2026

A Kamloops, B.C., city councillor says she's won a "precedent-setting" award for damages, closing out a bitter legal dispute with the city's mayor.

Speaking outside the Kamloops Law Courts on Friday, Coun. Katie Neustaeter said the B.C. Supreme Court had awarded her $5,000 in damages and full court costs related to a defamation suit filed against her by Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson.

In January, Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline Hughes dismissed Hamer-Jackson's suit under B.C.'s Protection of Public Participation Act. The act is commonly known as anti-SLAPP legislation, which is designed to protect political speech and public participation.

"To me the dollar amount was absolutely negligible, it was about making a point, and it was about ensuring that it was enough that people will think twice before they engage in this kind of behaviour," Neustaeter said.

The mayor filed the lawsuit in June 2023, alleging Neustaeter defamed him in multiple internal council emails and a public statement she read on behalf of city council during a March 2023 news conference.

In that statement, Neustaeter said council members had been "subjected to repeated disrespect, violations of personal and professional boundaries, belittling, and constantly disruptive behaviour by the mayor."

In tossing out the lawsuit earlier this year, Hughes ruled that Hamer-Jackson had been using it to target Neustaeter as a political adversary.

She also found the suit was linked to a dispute between the mayor and Neustaeter over her father, former B.C. MLA Kevin Krueger, who suffers from dementia.

According to the January ruling, there had been repeated contact between Krueger and the mayor starting in 2022. Neustaeter told the court she had asked Hamer-Jackson not to engage with her father, who's mental state she was concerned about, but the mayor continued to communicate with him.

"I want to very clear about this — I filed for damages to make an undeniable statement. The family members of elected officials should never be leveraged or manipulated for political benefit," Neustaeter said on Friday.

She added that this is the first time a court has awarded damages in an anti-SLAPP case involving elected officials in B.C.

She said she had used the only other Canadian precedent, an out-of-province award of $10,000, as a guideline in her application.

Neustaeter had been indemnified by the City of Kamloops, meaning the municipality had been funding her legal defence.

The court assigning costs to Hamer-Jackson means taxpayers will not be left to pick up the bill, which Neustaeter estimated to be "upwards of a quarter million dollars."

Hamer-Jackson told CBC News the ruling was "unbelievable" and that he is in the process of appealing.

10/02/2026

The Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District (ACRD) has teamed up with Surfrider Foundation Canada (SFC) to keep neoprene wetsuits out of the landfill and
in the lineup.

Retired wetsuits on the West Coast now have a better fate than the landfill. This year, Surfrider requested that the ACRD implement a ban on the disposal of wetsuits as waste at the West Coast Landfill (WC Landfill). On September 23, 2026, the ACRD Board of Directors adopted an amendment to Bylaw R1033, West Coast Landfill Tipping Fee and Regulation to add wetsuits under Schedule C “Prohibited Waste”. This change makes the WC Landfill the first in Canada to ban wetsuit disposal.

“We’re thrilled to achieve the first disposal ban on wetsuits at the West Coast Landfill.” says Lilly Woodbury, Campaigns and Storytelling Director of SFC. “Through this victory, we’ll be able to process more wetsuits at the ReSurf facility in Ucluelet and influence more landfills to also adopt disposal bans on wetsuits. This move is part of a greater shift towards a circular economy, where materials are kept in use, which saves water, lowers greenhouse gas emissions, supports local jobs, reduces waste and eliminates pollution.”

10/02/2026

The Defamation Act has come into effect in Saskatchewan as of Thursday October 1, enhancing residents’ protection through a legal framework that takes into account the current digital environment.

This Act replaces the Libel and Slander Act, which came into force in 1909. The Defamation Act addresses online content and communications, granting courts “clearer tools to address harmful online content while maintaining the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation,” said Tim McLeod, Saskatchewan justice minister and attorney general, in a statement.

The Defamation Act equalizes the treatment of newspapers, broadcast, and online media outlets. In particular, it eliminates wording specific to “newspapers” so that the law can be applied to all publishers.

The new law also cuts down red tape for newspapers in Saskatchewan by decommissioning the newspapers register; newspaper publishers will no longer have to make filings with the Registrar of Corporations.

The Defamation Act also allows courts to issue take-down and de-indexing orders to third parties over harmful online content that remains in circulation after the initial release. It sets a single course of action for a publication and any subsequent republications of material by the same publisher.

“The Act implements key recommendations aimed at protecting reputational rights, promoting clarity and fairness, and ensuring Saskatchewan's defamation laws remain effective and relevant in the digital age,” said Michael Milani, Law Reform Commission chair, in a statement.

Saskatchewan’s Law Reform Commission had pushed for an update to the Libel and Slander Act in a report following a March 2024 consultation. In line with this suggestion, The Defamation Act removes the differentiation between libel and slander; instead, its definition of “defamation” covers written and spoken statements harmful to an individual's reputation.

“The commission's recommendations were guided by the need to protect the reputational rights of individuals, provide clarity and fairness, and ensure that our laws reflect the realities of today's communication environment,” Milani said in a statement.

The Defamation Act was first introduced in November 2025.

09/30/2026

The B.C. Supreme Court has given the federal government six months to retool a federal drug law as it tossed criminal convictions against the founders of a Vancouver compassion club who “made it their mission to save lives by offering a non-medicalized safe supply of drugs.”

Jeremy Kalicum and Eris Nyx, founders of Vancouver’s Drug User Liberation Front, had been convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking last year for sourcing he**in, co***ne and methamphetamine off the dark web, then testing and selling it to members of their club at cost.

Justice Catherine Murray told a Vancouver courtroom of supporters and media on Tuesday that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act’s section around the conviction infringed on rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Murray found the section of the act prohibiting possession for the purposes of trafficking “criminalizes life-saving conduct in a manner that undermines, rather than furthers, the law’s purpose of advancing public health and maintaining public safety.”

Kalicum and Nyx had sought a legal pathway from Health Canada to run such a program but were never granted an exemption.

“This challenge is about the lack of ability to obtain an exemption,” the judge said in her decision.

Kalicum and Nyx found there was no such “pathway” to permit a non-medicalized safer supply program, she said.

They were found guilty in November 2025, but the judge put the convictions on hold to hear their constitutional challenge.

“After losing countless friends, colleagues, and neighbours to the crisis, they resolved to take action to address the problem of the unpredictability of the drug supply,” Murray’s ruling says. “Their mission was to save lives by offering a non-medicalized safe supply of drugs.”

Murray found the act infringes on the rights guaranteed under Sections 7 and 15 under the Charter, although she has suspended the invalidity finding for six months to give Parliament time to implement a plan that would allow for a non-medicalized safer supply program to operate.

Murray said such a program is “urgently needed to save lives” in the face of the toxic drug crisis that has killed more than 18,000 people since the B.C. government declared a public health emergency in 2016.

The ruling said that running a safer-supply program was precisely what the applicants were doing and that formed the basis of the criminal charges against them.

Kalicum and Nyx, the judge found, “have borne the burden of bringing a successful constitutional challenge, doing a public interest service at considerable cost to themselves.”

“I think you should be very proud of yourselves, and it’s people like you who make a difference and you just did. So, go do great things. I have no doubt that you will,” Murray told Kalicum and Nyx during the brief hearing.

Murray said the defect in the legislation needs to be addressed with some urgency.

“It has been over 11 years since the toxic drug crisis was declared a public health emergency. It remains an emergency,” her ruling said.

The compassion club reduced the harms associated with the toxic drug crisis and didn’t negatively impact the community or public safety, the decision said.

There is no legal source of drugs available for the non-medicalized safer supply program, it said.

It said the government should be given “full opportunity to craft its own response to the issues identified in this ruling.”

The existing legislation is capable of a range of responses that address the defects, including legislative changes and regulatory reform, Murray said in the decision.

The judge did not read her full decision in court but concluded her remarks by lauding Kalicum and Nyx for the personal risks they took in their work.

Nyx declined to comment after the hearing, but Kalicum said outside court that he felt “excellent.”

“That’s all I think I’m going to say, but I think everybody felt really good,” he said.

Tim Dickson, one of their lawyers, said outside the courthouse in Vancouver that the ruling was a “vindication of what DULF was doing.”

“The court found specifically that their compassion club did save lives. It reduced the risk of overdose. It did not cause negative impacts on society at large. It was a beneficial, positive, evidence-based program that they conducted, and that they were arrested and prosecuted for implementing,” he said.

He said the case was about the federal and provincial governments “refusal to implement” that life-saving measure, and how federal law “blocks any effort” to implement that measure.

He said Kalicum and Nyx ran the program with no profit or benefit to themselves and “always with the sole intention of trying to reduce the terrible rate of death in this crisis.”

“This case should never have been brought to trial. They never should have been prosecuted,” Dickson said.

Dickson said an article published in The Economist magazine about DULF’s activities mentioned public funding, which went to operating expenses and not to source the dark web drugs.

He said the article was seized upon by politicians, including Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who Dickson said tried to “cash in on this debate.”

Dickson said the pressure culminated when the NDP government decided to cut them off, with Vancouver Coastal Health pulling its funding, and BC Housing evicting them from their site before it was raided by police.

He said the decriminalization of small amounts of drugs in B.C. and safer supply programs also caused controversy, which conflated non-medicalized safer supply programs with alleged diversion of prescribed safer supply drugs.

“But those issues all got swirled together, and drug policy just turned to a more conservative stance,” he said. “It’s clear that there was a lot of political backlash, and the political debate was not able to disentangle the issues properly.”

He told reporters that the Crown has 30 days to appeal the ruling.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada said in a statement that “as in any case, following a decision, prosecutors review the judgment and assess any potential next steps.”

09/28/2026

"The requests appear in the 2027–2036 general fund budget report going to council on Tuesday, Sept. 29.

The largest ongoing request is $259,000 for two bylaw enforcement positions. Staff say the added capacity would help the District respond to complex issues involving encampments, homelessness and community safety."

District of Squamish staff are proposing $580,000 in 2027 spending for bylaw enforcement, support for a BC Housing temporary housing program and a new community safety plan.

09/25/2026

https://youtu.be/iuo_-VQmGBY

After Parton's estate filed a complaint seeking a restraining order...