Vancouver Radio station CKNW has reported that a Coroner’s Inquest will soon be held into the death of Jeff Berg, who died October 24, 2000 after being arrested by Vancouver police Constable David Bruce-Thomas. This news comes after Berg family counsel Cameron Ward wrote to Attorney General Geoff Plant on February 6, 2004, demanding that he order that an Inquest be held.

The CKNW story:

VANCOUVER (CKNW/AM980) — More than three years ago Jeff Berg died during his arrest by Vancouver Police in an eastside alley. Today, Vancouver coroner Stephen Fonseca announced an inquest will be held. Fonseca says no date for the inquest has yet been set because he is still trying to bring all the witnesses and lawyers together. But he’s hoping to have it done before the Police Complaints public hearing in June.

Chief Coroner Terry P. Smith, in a letter mistakenly dated Novemvber 19, 2004 and received by us on February 23, 2004, has responded to our letter to Mr. Plant. Mr. Smith indicated that the Coroner “intends to proceed with an inquest at the earliest opportunity”.

As of February 26, 2004, we still have not received formal confirmation of the inquest date, although Coroner Stephen Fonseca has indicated that it may be held starting October 4, 2004.

The Berg family is distressed by the extraordinary delay in getting this matter before a Coroner’s jury and we have written the Coroner to request an earlier date.

The Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia have resolved, by a vote of 17-9, to instruct staff to prepare a form of referendum question dealing with the appropriateness of compelling BC lawyers to pay CBA fees as a condition to obtaining a practice certificate from the Law Society.

It is expected that the binding referendum will occur prior to the 2005 practice year. Past and present CBA executive members spoke against the referendum concept, but their views were rejected by a majority of the Benchers.

The Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia have accepted Mr. Ward’s request to address the issue of mandatory CBA payments at the next Bencher’s meeting, scheduled for February 6, 2004. Mr. Ward has been given five minutes to set out his views on the subject.

Rich Coleman, Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety for the Province of British Columbia, has reportedly announced that the search policies at the Vancouver Jail have been changed so that new detainees will no longer be automatically strip-searched upon admission.

If true, this policy change is long overdue. In December of 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that routine strip searches violated section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The authorities could only conduct these intrusive and demeaning searches if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the subject was hiding a weapon or evidence related to the commission of the offence that resulted in detention.

Inexplicably, those in charge of the Vancouver Jail continued to strip search everyone admitted into their custody.

Our firm has filed a class action seeking damages on behalf of everyone who had their constitutional rights violated since December of 2001. We are currently seeking dates for the hearing of an application to certify the case as a class proceeding and hope that the matter will be argued in the next few months.

If you wish to become a member of the class, please contact us.

Lawyers for both sides have agreed to February 25, 2004 as the hearing date for a summary trial application in a lawsuit filed by a dozen MBA students at the University of British Columbia over the 321% increase in their tuition fees for their program that commenced in August of 2002.

The students allege that they accepted UBC’s offer of admission to the MBA program on its representation that their tuition fees would be $7,000, “subject to adjustment…” After they paid their deposits to reserve places in the program, UBC suddenly and without warning “adjusted” their tuition to $28,000.

The students allege that UBC’s conduct constituted breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and/or misrepresentation by ommission on the part of UBC and are seeking compensation from the Court.

The case will be heard by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.