Conservation officer improperly fired for refusing to kill bear cubs, legal protections for police officers in Canada, and refusing to allow a lawyer unreasonable

In 2015 a BC conservation officer was dismissed from his position for refusing to kill two bear cubs. 

Initially, the conservation officer didn’t have the assistance of a lawyer and the issue of his dismissal was dealt with by a union representative and the Labour Relations Board. 

Eventually, the conservation officer retained a lawyer who identified that conservation officers are peace officers and issues relating to their discipline or dismissal need to be dealt with pursuant to the Police Act.

After several years of litigation, the BC Court of Appeal finally determined that the Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction, and the case should have been deal with pursuant to the Police Act from the start. 

Also discussed, in the context of the killing of George Floyd in the United States, are the special legal protections afforded police officers in Canada. 

In Canada, the Criminal Code only protects peace offers that use force that is likely or intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm if the police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the force is necessary for self-preservation, or to protect someone the police officer is protecting from death or grievous bodily harm.

A police officer in Canada would not be permitted to choke off someone's air supply in order to punish them, make them more compliant, or easier to load into a police car while unconscious. 

There are some special provisions in Canada that do permit a peace officer to use force likely or intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm in order to prevent an inmate from escaping a penitentiary, if the escape can’t reasonably be prevented by less violent means, as long as the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that any of the inmates of the penitentiary poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. 

This could permit, for example, an escaping inmate to be shot even if a peace officer didn’t know if the particular inmate posed a threat to kill someone. There still would need to be no other reasonable way to prevent the escape, by less violent means for the defence to apply. 

Finally, a case concerning the Civil Resolution Tribunal is discussed on the show. 

The Civil Resolution Tribunal was established to adjudicate strata disputes, and small claims cases for less than $5,000. It’s intended to be an expedited, online, dispute resolution system. 

Unfortunately, the legislation that created the Civil Resolution Tribunal requires parties to ask permission to have a lawyer represent them, unless they are a child, or suffer from a disability.

When a man sued the strata corporation in his building for $30,000 over a dispute concerning a patio repair, that strata corporation asked for permission to have their lawyer represent them. 

Strata corporations would often be run by a group of volunteers, who may not have the time, experience, or interest, in personally conducting a case.

The adjudicator working for the Civil Resolution Tribunal refused the request and much litigation ensued, eventually resulting in the case going all the way to the BC Court of Appeal. That court concluded that the adjudicator had acted unreasonably in refusing to permit the strata corporation to have a lawyer help them. The case has now been sent back to be done again.

The poorly conceived legislation that permits the Civil Resolution Tribunal to prohibit a party from using a lawyer should be amended to remove this authority.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.