Double Diamond Law - Squamish / Whistler, BC

06/05/2026

The Supreme Court of Canada confirms that criminal convictions must be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not simply on choosing one witness’s account over another.

Mr. Berg and the complainant met when he checked into the hotel where she worked at the front desk. They exchanged contact information and stayed in touch over the next two days. During Mr. Berg’s stay at the hotel, the complainant accepted an invitation to visit him in his room after finishing her shift.

The complainant testified that Mr. Berg sexually assaulted her in the hotel room. Mr. Berg testified that the sexual in*******se was consensual. The central issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent. The judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and rejected Mr. Berg’s version of events. He found Mr. Berg guilty of sexual assault.

Mr. Berg appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. He argued that the trial judge failed to properly address important inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence when deciding whether she was a credible witness.

A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It concluded that the judge did not disregard the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and could find that they did not undermine her credibility on the key issue of consent. It held that the judge considered the evidence as a whole and correctly applied the burden of proof. One judge of the Court of Appeal disagreed. In her view, the trial judge did not properly address important inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence about her alcohol and ma*****na use. She concluded that the evidence was not properly assessed as a whole when determining whether the Crown had proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. She would have allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. Mr. Berg appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The judgment was delivered orally by Chief Justice Wagner on the day of the hearing with reasons to follow.

Mr. Berg’s conviction for sexual assault remains in place.

In a unanimous judgment, the Court agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal. However, the Court gave guidance about an Ontario Court of Appeal decision called R. v. J.J.R.D. (2006), 218 O.A.C. 37. That case is often used when trial judges deal with conflicting testimony. The Court explained that J.J.R.D. was about whether a trial judge’s reasons were detailed enough to allow an appeal court to review the decision. It clarified that trial judges should generally not rely on J.J.R.D. when assessing an accused person’s evidence in a criminal trial or directing the jury. If used incorrectly, J.J.R.D. may wrongly suggest that a judge can reject an accused person’s evidence simply because the judge accepts the complainant’s evidence. That would be an error, because a conviction must always rest on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, the trial judge did not make that error. He did not reject Mr. Berg’s account only because he accepted the complainant’s testimony. Instead, he considered Mr. Berg’s account in light of all the evidence before finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, Mr. Berg’s conviction for sexual assault remains in place.

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.

06/05/2026

“A legal petition requiring physical signatures is also underway. Unlike an online petition, a legal petition to the legislature must be gathered in person. Anyone wishing to help collect signatures can contact Greenlaw directly at [email protected].”

Squamish councillor Lauren Greenlaw wants to overturn B.C.'s PST expansion, saying it will hurt small businesses and raise the cost of living.

06/05/2026

A Toronto-area lawyer accused of advising the murder of a federal witness in an alleged international drug smuggling ring will stay out on bail after Ontario’s top court rejected the Crown’s bid to overturn his release.

Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada had asked the Ontario Court of Appeal to order Deepak Paradkar’s detention until his extradition hearing, arguing the judge who granted the lawyer bail last December “speculated and drew inferences” not grounded in evidence.

Prosecutors argued the intervention was necessary to “salvage the public’s confidence in the administration of justice,” protect the public and make sure Canada could meet its treaty obligations in the case.

Both the Crown and the defence also sought to have new evidence admitted as part of the bail review, which was heard in April.

In a decision released Thursday, the Appeal Court agreed to admit the new evidence, including revised documents prepared by American authorities.

However, the court dismissed the Crown’s application for review, finding no errors in Superior Court Justice Peter Bawden’s approach and decision.

Paradkar was one of several Canadians arrested for extradition to the United States last fall, part of a lengthy FBI effort to close in on one of its then-most wanted fugitives, the former Canadian athlete Ryan Wedding.

Wedding, a former Olympic snowboarder now accused of running an international drug empire, was taken into U.S. custody in January. He is alleged to have ordered the killings of several people, including a witness who could testify against him in a narcotics case.

Prosecutors allege Paradkar, a defence lawyer based in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill, advised Wedding on the killing of a federal witness and introduced the alleged kingpin to drug traffickers who moved product through North America.

It’s also alleged he directed intelligence gathering after the organization’s drugs were seized by law enforcement.

Just before Christmas, Bawden ruled to release Paradkar on bail, with conditions that include house arrest, GPS monitoring and a prohibition on the use of electronic devices unless supervised by one of his sureties.

Paradkar’s wife is his primary surety, and the couple has jointly pledged $5 million for his release.

Prosecutors argued in their application that Bawden didn’t properly scrutinize Paradkar’s wife in assessing her as a surety, nor did the judge consider the pair’s testimony about details of their assets not disclosed in affidavits.

The Crown further argued Bawden failed to grapple with the gap between the couple’s income and their lavish lifestyle, which court heard included expensive family vacations, the lease of multiple luxury cars and an insurance claim for a sizable collection of designer clothing and accessories.

In its ruling, the Appeal Court said both Paradkar and his wife were questioned about their income and assets and gave explanations for how they obtained them over the years.

“While it was suggested that their admitted sources of income and their lifestyle and assets did not ‘add up,’ this was far from an inevitable conclusion on the record,” the court said.

Regardless, the issue was not whether Paradkar had the money to go on the lam but rather “whether he had the incentive to do so,” the court wrote.

“Mr. Paradkar’s incentive to stay in Canada, and to comply with the terms of his bail and attend court, was, in the application judge’s words, a ‘compelling reason’ for finding that Mr. Paradkar had met his onus” regarding flight risk, it said.

As well, Bawden did assess the suitability of Paradkar’s wife as a surety, and the findings he made were available on the evidence, it wrote.

The Crown also argued Bawden relied on speculation in gauging whether Paradkar posed a flight risk. For example, they said, the judge concluded Paradkar would not have access to medical care for his diabetes and heart issues if he went on the run.

The Appeal Court agreed with Paradkar’s lawyers that, to the extent that Bawden could be said to have speculated, “he was responding to scenarios for flight that were themselves necessarily hypothetical: that Mr. Paradkar would seek refuge with a foreign drug cartel, use undisclosed resources to leave Canada for a foreign country, or ‘go underground’ in Canada.”

06/04/2026

06/04/2026

A tax court judge has ruled a West Vancouver woman must pay tax on nearly $457,000 in profit from the sale of a North Vancouver pre-sale condominium, finding the purchase was part of a speculative real estate venture rather than the sale of a principal residence.

In a decision released May 19, Justice Perry Derksen dismissed appeals brought by Michelle Qureshi over both income tax and GST assessments tied to the 2018 sale of a two-bedroom, 1,000 square foot condo in Lower Lonsdale.

The case centred on a unit at 255 West 1st St. in North Vancouver, which Qureshi bought in a pre-construction contract with Polygon West Quay Homes in 2015 for $659,900 and sold in 2018 for just over $1.16 million.

After costs, the sale generated a profit of $456,907.

Qureshi argued the condo had been intended as her home and should qualify for the principal residence exemption. The Canada Revenue Agency disagreed, assessing the gain as business income and also requiring her to pay GST on the sale.

In tax court, the judge sided with the taxman, concluding that the circumstances surrounding the deal clearly pointed to Qureshi’s intent to flip the condo from the outset.

The court heard that after the condo took longer than expected to build, Qureshi completed the purchase and took possession in October 2017 and listed it for sale less than six weeks later, on Dec. 6, 2017. It sold the following spring.

Qureshi testified she had intended to live there long-term after downsizing from a larger family home. She said she later discovered the building was noisy and unsuitable.

But Derksen found that explanation was not supported by the evidence.

The judge pointed to a series of other real estate transactions involving Qureshi and her former husband, including previous purchases of West Vancouver properties, some of which had already been treated as business ventures for tax purposes.

The judge also questioned whether Qureshi had ever truly lived in the condo at all.

Although she testified she lived in the apartment with her teenaged daughters from late 2017 to June 2018, Derksen found there was little evidence of actual occupancy, adding it “seems illogical” that she would move into the condo at the same time as listing it for sale.

Although Qureshi testified about moving furniture into the condo, the judge noted “occupancy involves more than simply moving a few items into the premises,” adding Qureshi’s actions seemed more consistent with “staging it for sale.”

He noted she never changed the address on her driver’s licence and never installed Wi-Fi in the condo while maintaining internet service at another home she owned in West Vancouver.

The judge also found it unlikely her teenage daughters would move from a large house with separate bedrooms near their school in West Vancouver into a smaller condo where they would share one room.

Evidence in the case included a real estate listing for the property which described the condo as brand new and vacant. A property disclosure form, filled out and initialled by Qureshi, left blank the question of whether the unit had ever been occupied.

Because the court found Qureshi bought the unit as part of a business venture, the profit was deemed taxable as business income rather than receiving the more favourable tax treatment available for capital gains on principal residences.

The ruling also meant she qualified as a “builder” under federal tax laws, requiring her to collect and remit GST on the sale because the condo had never been genuinely occupied.

Derksen noted the case unfolded against the backdrop of soaring Metro Vancouver real estate prices during the mid-2010s housing boom, noting provincial measures such as the foreign buyers tax and later speculation tax were introduced in response to growing concerns about housing speculation and affordability.

06/02/2026

Fender’s legal campaign over the copyright of the Stratocaster body shape shows no sign of reaching a resolution, though the brand is revealing more about their perspective on the situation.

Today, Fender has released to Guitar.com legal correspondence between itself and another guitar brand that references the social media storm caused by these legal threats becoming public, and claims that this has led to “misunderstandings” that it seeks to clear up.

Fender releasing the correspondence comes on the heels of a Wall Street Journal article yesterday that – in addition to reporting much of what Guitar.com has already revealed about the situation – broke the news that PRS has also been sent a cease and desist letter.

PRS, of course, is the maker of the Silver Sky – the John Mayer signature model that is heavily inspired by the Strat, and has the distinction of even outselling Fender’s original on Reverb in recent years.

PRS wouldn’t comment in detail about the letter, only telling the WSJ that, “The company said it disagrees with Fender’s assessment and declined to comment further.”

PRS joins LsL as the only two brands to confirm publicly that they have been sent these cease and desist letters – but Guitar.com can reveal that at least one other global major guitar brand has been sent one. We cannot name the brand for confidentiality reasons, but we can share that the brand in question has rebuffed Fender’s demands via its own lawyers.

In the correspondence that Fender released to us, which closely mirrors the document we reported on earlier this week, the brand makes it clear that they are aware of the huge social media backlash that has accompanied this story.

“These letters have triggered a substantial echo, not only from its addressees and their lawyers, but also from the media and on social media,” it reads. “From these reactions, we took that apparently there have been a lot of misunderstandings about the nature and the scope of the matter.”

The letter goes on to say that they hope the rest of the text “will clarify many aspects and will help to avoid further or continued misconceptions.”

While the letter goes on to challenge various aspects of Fender history and legal precedent raised in the original letter sent to them, the brand’s lawyers speak more generally about the perception of their actions in the wider guitar community.

“In particular, we would like to make it clear to everyone that Fender does not object to double cutaway or two horned electric guitar bodies,” it reads. “But only to such electric guitar bodies which are close copies of the design of the iconic “Fender Stratocaster.” Everybody is welcome and will be able to continue making and selling double cutaway and/or two horned electric guitars, as long as they are designed sufficiently different from the “Fender Stratocaster”.

While Fender is trying to get its side of the story across to the guitar community, the first brand who spoke out about the cease and desists, LsL Instruments, have also released a statement to Guitar.com relating to the outpouring of support they’ve received in the week or so since they launched a GoFundMe to help cover legal costs.

“We want to thank everyone in the guitar community for their support and help as we navigate such a massive situation with such massive implications,” said LsL’s J***y Miller.

“We’re not champions here. We’re just a small shop full of good people that build the best guitar we possibly can for the great people that will own and play them for a lifetime (we hope). Please continue to support us by sharing our Go Fund Me and please do know that every build counts. We are sincerely grateful for every order. Every build helps us stay afloat.

“The story of boutique guitars needs to be told. It has been presented and well received over the last few decades, but we intend to tell the whole story in the true positive light it deserves.

Most of us know each other. This community is tighter knit than most realise and there is a kindness that flows from one of us to the next. A boutique bond if you will. We plan to come together, in a most respectful and responsible manner, to help you all understand why this niche corner of the guitar world is so very special and worth protecting.”

Miller confirmed that he has begun working with other boutique builders to better tell the story of the community, and will be publishing it on his blog in the coming months, because, as he puts it, “unity always prevails”.

Fender’s own communication implies that a significant number of brands have been sent these cease and desist letters. According to Fender’s lawyers, some are opting to enter into “reasonable settlement discussions” rather than push back – it remains to be seen if the unity Miller speaks of will have any substance on this particular situation.

06/02/2026

As more workers across the country find themselves forced back into the office full time, experts say a recent court decision in British Columbia could have broader implications for remote work — and shows why employers need to implement return-to-office mandates with care.

In mid-May, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a decision finding that an employee of a Vancouver-based real estate development company was constructively dismissed when they abruptly ended her longstanding remote work arrangement and directed her to return to the office full time.

The Supreme Court of Canada defines constructive dismissal as when an employer unilaterally makes substantial changes to the essential terms of an employee’s contract that the employee does not agree to and leaves their job.

The plaintiff, Tracy Parolin, had had a flexible work schedule with her employer, Cressey Construction Corporation, since returning from maternity leave in 2013 after giving birth to twins, one of whom had a significant health issue, the appeal court decision says.

In March 2020, Parolin started working remotely along with the rest of Cressey employees due to the COVID-19 pandemic. When other employees returned to the office, she continued to work from home with the approval of successive supervisors who understood her childcare needs, the decision says.

But at a meeting to discuss a salary increase in May 2023, a new supervisor revoked her flexible work arrangement and directed her to return to the office full time. Parolin left her job shortly thereafter as a result, court documents say.

Cressey had argued there were no explicit terms in Parolin's contract that stated she could work from home full time and/or outside regular hours.

But the trial judge sided with Parolin, finding that her flexible working hours had become an enforceable, fundamental term of her employment and had been supported for years by her employer.

The judge also found the company's change to this arrangement was made unilaterally and without notice.

CBC News reached out to Cressey Construction Corporation, now operating under the name Cressey Development Group, for comment but did not receive a response.

In an interview, Parolin said the appeal court's decision validated her feeling that what happened "wasn't right."

She said she hopes the case sheds light on the need for flexible work arrangements so that people can balance work and their personal lives, adding that having that flexibility "didn't make me work less."

"It allowed me to be fully in my role and work on my career and also be there for my family."

The wave of return-to-office mandates has been "awful" for many parents who are not only facing extra expenses from commuting but also for childcare, said Allison Venditti, a Toronto-based human resources expert and founder of Moms at Work.

"This is a really big problem from multiple angles for people who are already struggling."

Venditti said she's monitoring a lot of legal cases surrounding remote work that are working their way through the court system, and she expects more will crop up as more and more Canadians are pulled back into the office.

"I tell everybody, just watch or sign up for updates on legal cases because, over the next 18 months, they're going to be fast and furious."

What's interesting about Parolin's case is that it demonstrates that remote work arrangements can become essential terms of employment, said Ryan Berger, an employment lawyer at Lawson Lundell LLP in Vancouver.

"So when organizations are considering remote work or changes to remote work, like a return-to-office mandate, then they need to be thoughtful about it."

He said he expects lawyers representing employees will be paying attention to this decision and may try to argue their client is in a similar situation as Parolin.

"I'm sure we'll see this case get cited across the country for that argument."

Employers can't 'pivot too quickly'

Berger and other employment lawyers said the outcome in this court case doesn't mean employers can't ask employees to return to the office full time, but it does show what can go wrong if it's not done carefully.

"This decision shouldn't scare employers into the idea or concept that any return to work is going to lead to constructive dismissal," said Sundeep Gokhale, a Toronto-based employment lawyer with Sherrard Kuzz.

"What it does do is highlight the mistakes an employer can make when they pivot too quickly."

The case demonstrates employers need to be "very clear" about their expectations, Gokhale said, especially in cases where remote work might be used temporarily.

"What courts have established is that the location of the workplace is an absolute fundamental term and condition of employment."

Survey suggests employees 'upset' about return to office, prefer flexible work
Bell fires employees it claims falsified attendance records, but some deny it
However, Vancouver-based lawyer Melanie Harmer, who practices employment litigation, said she thinks the court may have ruled in the employer's favour if Parolin didn't have the flexible work arrangement prior to the pandemic.

"For many employers, where they temporarily had their employees go home only because of the pandemic, they'll be in a much better situation if they wish to call employees back to the office," she said.

05/30/2026

Hundreds of migrant workers have won a class action lawsuit against Mac’s Convenience Stores and three B.C. immigration consultant companies after a judge found they had unlawfully charged recruitment fees for jobs that rarely materialized.

In a Thursday, May 28 ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sharon Matthews found Mac’s had entered into employment contracts with the three Surrey-based consultant companies to provide temporary foreign workers for stores across B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.

The lead plaintiffs in the case were four workers, two from the Philippines and two from Nepal. They claimed that Overseas Immigration Services Inc. and Overseas Career and Consulting Services Ltd. operated as a single entity to charge them illegal fees in exchange for the promise of a job.

The workers were among roughly 880 migrants who paid up to $8,000 to secure employment in Canada. Only about 125 of those workers ever made it to the country, said Susanna Quail, a lawyer for plaintiffs.

“A lot of people, they paid and they just got ghosted,” said Quail. “Almost none of them got jobs in Mac’s Convenience Stores.”

In Canada, recruiters are prohibited from charging workers fees for a job placement. Quail said employers can legally hire third-party consultant to recruit foreign workers but that any associated fees must be paid by the companies—not the workers themselves.

Company sought to draw on pool of foreign workers

In court, a Mac’s representative testified that in 2012, it was having problems recruiting both store employees and dealers, who are hired to run the convenience stores and directly employ staff.

That year, the company started working with Overseas and its principal, regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant Kuldeep Bansal, to recruit people to the company’s dealer training program.

Under the rules of Canada’s temporary foreign worker program, Mac’s could only bring workers to the country as employees for a two-year period, during which they could apply for permanent residency.

Because prospective dealers had to be citizens or permanent residents, Mac’s used Overseas to recruit employees on the theory that they might later be able to train as dealers, the ruling found.

“What Mac’s wanted to do is bring workers to Canada without any specific intention to employ them, and then when job opportunities came up, they could draw on that pool of workers,” said Quail. “That’s obviously advantageous to Mac’s but also highly exploitative to workers.”

“This was the plan all along.”

The recruitment eventually relied on blanket labour market impact assessments, a document meant to prove no Canadian citizen or permanent resident is available or willing to do a job category.

Worker says he was detained, ended up in homeless shelter

The plan targeted hundreds of migrant workers who had previously come to Dubai from places like the Philippines, Nepal, China or India.

Prakash Basyal, a lead plaintiff from Nepal, was working at a Baskin Robbins ice cream shop in Dubai when he attended a job fair at the Flora Creek Hotel.

At the time, he testified that he was using his earnings to support his parents, grandparents and four siblings back home. He wanted to come to Canada because he heard he might be able to bring his family with him.

Baysal testified that he was told to pay a $2,000 fee for a promise that Overseas would find him a job. Three months later, he got an offer to work as a cashier at a Mac’s Convenience Store at $11.40 per hour, plus overtime, the ruling says.

He signed the contract and paid another $6,000 in fees Overseas claimed was to cover immigration services. At the time, Baysal was “very happy” because “it was his dream job to provide proper support for his family,” wrote the judge in her ruling.

Baysal landed in Vancouver on a Friday in April 2014 and promptly received his work permit from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). On Monday, he went to Overseas with the expectation of receiving his cashier contract in Edmonton.

Instead, he was placed in a two or three-bedroom residence where seven or eight people lived, he told the court. Baysal said he spent two to three weeks there, before being told the original plan “was not working out” and that he’d be sent to work on a farm.

After the worker refused to do so, he was sent to work in a bottle recycling depot in Lethbridge, Alta. When CBSA officials later raided the facility, Baysal said he was handcuffed and taken away to a detention centre.

“The next day, the CBSA took him to a homeless shelter in Calgary where he stayed for a month. He got a bus back to Vancouver where he lived in a homeless shelter on Homer Street for three to four months,” wrote the judge.

'Just surviving'

Bishnu Khadka, another Nepalese worker, testified that he was recruited to work in Kitimat, B.C. He eventually found an apartment to share with another worker. But after the company failed to provide him his contracted full-time shifts, they struggled to get by, he testified.

“They did not have enough money to eat, and the apartment had no furniture. They were sleeping on the floor,” wrote the judge.

Khadka testified that he eventually flew back to Vancouver with the help of a community group. When he arrived at Overseas’s offices, he claimed the company’s principal, Bansal, yelled at him and asked if he wanted to work on a farm or go back to Nepal.

Bansal, for his part, testified that the worker left and never came back after he offered him three job options, one of which was farm work.

Khadka said he went to a Vancouver homeless shelter where he was “just surviving” until a contact introduced him to a legal aid group that helped him file a complaint with Canada’s Employment Standards Branch.

Eventually, the worker eventually got jobs in a number of restaurants and is currently applying to be a Canadian citizen.

Both the Nepalese plaintiffs are now working in Canada as bus drivers.

Plaintiff Edlyn Tesorero, meanwhile, testified she was recruited from Dubai under the false pretence of guaranteed employment but was left with no jobs upon arriving in Canada. Stranded without an income, she resorted to illegal cash jobs to survive or ultimately left the country in distress, experiencing what was described as “one of the darkest times of her life.”

In her decision, the judge determined that none of the plaintiffs appeared to exaggerate their experiences nor skew evidence in their favour. On the other hand, Matthews found the testimony of management from both Mac’s and Overseas to be highly problematic, describing both primary witnesses as untruthful, evasive, and unreliable on contested matters.

She found that Mac’s was intentionally dishonest with the roughly 125 workers who made it to Canada and often failed provide the jobs they signed contracts for.

“I conclude that Mac’s created the false pretenses and by creating them and failing to correct them, it engaged in at least an obfuscation of the truth if not an outright lie,” wrote the judge.

Unlawful behaviour, unjust enrichment could lead to millions in damages

All of workers who testified said they were provided with inadequate housing while Canada, and none said they got help securing cell phones, social insurance numbers or medical coverage.

In some cases, Overseas directed the class members to pay fees to a third company, Trident Immigration Services Ltd. Both Overseas and Trident were found to have been “unjustly enriched” through the collection of “unlawful fees.”

Overseas Immigration Services Inc. has been dissolved while Overseas Career and Consulting Services Ltd. has changed its name to Sterling Immigration, according to the decision.

Business in Vancouver attempted to reach Overseas and Trident for comment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Mac’s parent company Couche-Tard has since rebranded the chain Circle K. A lawyer for the company said Mac's is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.

The defendants in the case have about a month to appeal the decision.

Should the ruling stand, it's not clear how much the companies will be held liable for.

The lead plaintiffs asked the judge to order Mac’s, Overseas and Trident to each pay $15 million in total damages.

But Matthews ruled that any money owed—including damages—for each breached contract would need to be determined through individual assessments with the class members.

Any damages handed down by the court as a punishment to deter other Canadian companies from similar action will only be determined after the individual assessments are made, according to the ruling.

Quail said the court’s decision has allowed her clients to feel vindicated that they didn’t do anything unreasonable. Next comes tracking down all the class members to assess what they are entitled to—a process the lawyer said would take time as many may still be stuck in homeless shelters or have gone back to Dubai or their home countries.

“This guy got rich stealing $6 million from poor people in Dubai,” said Quail. “And we have to do everything we possibly can to get that money back for them.”