Welcome And New Voice

Warren Berg 0:00

Good morning and welcome to the May edition of Ask the Lawyer Across Alberta on Windspeaker Radio, CFWE and CJWE. I'm your host, Warren Berg, and joining us again this month is Cynthia Carels of Weir Bowen, LLP in Edmonton. And Cynthia, this month you brought a fresh new voice that we haven't met before.

Cynthia Carels 0:16

Yes, well, great to be back. Uh and yes, I am delighted to have Toby Vickar join us for her very first time in the hot seat here at Ask the Lawyer. Uh, Toby is one of our newest associates at Weir Bowen. And you know, although it feels like we've known her for a very long time, she actually came to us as a summer student and then went on to clerk with the Alberta Court of Justice. Um I guess that kind of speaks to the fact that not only we thought she was great, but the courts did too.

Warren Berg 0:41

Well, welcome, Toby.

Toby Vickar 0:42

Thank you, Warren, and thank you, Cynthia. Hopefully I'll be able to live up to the kind introduction.

Warren Berg 0:46

Weir Bowen is an Edmonton-based law firm. Its lawyers represent clients throughout Alberta and across Western Canada, and the firm has also been involved in some very important cases at every level of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada. And I understand there is some new recognition for Weir Bowen

Firm Recognition And Case Preparation

Warren Berg 1:03

this month.

Cynthia Carels 1:03

Yes, there is, and this is something that we're actually very proud of because it actually recognizes our whole team at Weir Bowen, as opposed to some of the specific lawyers at our firm who uh tend to attract a lot of individual recognition. Uh so there's a very well-respected industry publication within the legal community known as Canadian Lawyer Magazine, and it has just released its list of the best personal injury law firms in Canada for 2026. Um, and not unexpectedly, given the concentration of big firms in Toronto, there were quite a few from there. But Weir Bowen was actually named as the top personal injury boutique in Western Canada. And as part of this honor, we were featured in a special report that talked about what sets strong personal injury firms apart. And the reviews from our peers and the magazine really underscored that Weir Bowen as a firm is able to set the direction of cases early on and keep those cases moving, even when the justice system itself is grindingly slow, um, you know, proving both the liability and the losses with evidence that can stand up to real scrutiny.

Warren Berg 2:07

So that sounds like a pretty good description of what serious injury law requires, but I guess not all of these firms actually deliver.

Toby Vickar 2:16

It really is. These cases are not just about writing a demand letter and hoping for the best. A serious injury case or a serious medical malpractice case has to be built very carefully. You need the records, you need the right experts, you need a clear theory of what went wrong, and you need to understand the real life impact on the client. Cynthia was actually quoted in the article saying, We negotiate from preparation, not from hope. That is a line we have a motto, yeah. That is a line we've repeated around the office because it says a lot in a very few words. When we go into a mediation or settlement discussions, our file needs to be built as though we are going into a trial. We need to be able to show what happened, why it matters, and what the loss is.

Warren Berg 2:55

Well, congratulations to Weir Bowen. It's a very nice way to start the show.

Cynthia Carels 2:58

Yeah, thanks. And it's actually a really good lead-in to today's topic as well, uh, because the work that we do at Weir Bowen in personal injury and medical malpractice often involves more than just, you know, looking

Why Anti-Indigenous Racism Matters

Cynthia Carels 3:10

at what happened medically. We also have to look at how a patient was heard, uh, or in many of our medical malpractice cases at least, how patients were not heard. So we have to look at what assumptions were made, and we have to look at whether or not the care was affected, uh, even by things like bias, racism, or barriers that are built into our health system.

Warren Berg 3:31

And today's topic is medical prejudice towards indigenous patients.

Toby Vickar 3:36

Yes, it is. So with National Indigenous History Month coming up in June, we wanted to revisit a hard but important topic, anti-Indigenous racism in Canadian health care, and how that can connect to medical malpractice and wrongful death claims.

Cynthia Carels 3:49

So we did talk about this um on Ask the Lawyer last year, and we hoped, like many people, that uh the public attention on these stories would lead to, you know, fast change. Uh, but the problem is obviously still current. And in the last year alone, there have been new inquests, uh new data, new public apologies, and uh increasingly new calls for change as well. And when we say current, we really mean current. So this is not just a history lesson. Uh, it's not only about things that happened a long time ago, but we are still seeing families saying that indigenous patients are having their symptoms minimized, um their pain discounted, or even their behaviors judged through stereotypes.

Warren Berg 4:33

And and it seems to me these stories keep coming up. What is new since the last time we discussed

Heather Winterstein Inquest Lessons

Warren Berg 4:38

this?

Toby Vickar 4:39

So, one of the most recent examples is the coroner's inquest into the death of Heather Winterstein. Heather was a twenty four-year-old indigenous woman from St. Catharines, Ontario. The inquest just concluded in April 2026. Heather had been taken by ambulance to the hospital with severe pain. She was discharged, then returned by ambulance the next morning. She later collapsed and died in the waiting room. The jury found that her death was accidental and was caused by septic shock and sepsis with delayed treatment. As a result of the inquest, the jury made sixty-eight recommendations to hospitals, ambulance services, police, the Ministry of Health, and health regulators. Many of those recommendations were about improving the experience and safety of Indigenous patients.

Cynthia Carels 5:21

Yeah, and this inquest matters because it is a fresh reminder that these are patient safety issues. They're not old stories that belong in a history textbook. They are happening in modern hospitals, under modern-day policies, in communities where people expect to be safe when they go to the hospital. And the family's position was actually that anti-indigenous racism and stigma about substance abuse were central issues in how Heather's symptoms were understood and how her care ultimately unfolded. So this inquest raises a very hard question. What happens when a patient's pain is seen through a stereotype before it's actually seen as a medical emergency?

Warren Berg 6:04

Now that's a very blunt way to put it, but I guess it makes the issue very clear.

Cynthia Carels 6:08

Yeah, it does. And you know, bluntness is sometimes needed here. Uh if a patient says, I'm in severe pain, the safe response is not to assume that they're exaggerating, uh, that they're drug-seeking, intoxicated, or difficult. The safe response is to assess them properly. The safe response is to ask, what could be going on medically here, and what are the risks if we're wrong?

Warren Berg 6:31

And I understand that there have also been recent institutional developments that really speak to the broader systemic nature of this

Apologies And New Public Health Data

Warren Berg 6:38

issue.

Toby Vickar 6:38

Yes, there have been. So just a couple of weeks ago, the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba issued a public apology to First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people for its role in discrimination within the healthcare system. And this matters because the issue is not only about the conduct of one doctor or one nurse in the room. These harms can be shaped by systems, policies, training gaps, assumptions, and workplace cultures. Regulators and healthcare institutions have their own responsibility to confront bias and make real change.

Cynthia Carels 7:07

And that kind of apology also matters because nurses are often the first people a patient uh sees at a hospital. You know, they're often involved in the triage, and they're often the people who monitor whether a patient is getting worse over time. So if there are racist assumptions that are baked into the system, they can affect the very first steps of getting care. And we're also seeing more national attention to this as well. The Canadian Public Health Association has recently summarized that indigenous peoples continue to face delayed or denied care, uh, inadequate pain management, and lower life expectancy. And it also notes that, you know, as recently as 2024, one in five Indigenous people reported discriminatory or racist behavior from someone in the healthcare system.

Warren Berg 7:57

So that there's a lot of current examples. How does all of this connect to the law?

How Bias Shows Up In Charts

Toby Vickar 8:02

Well, at We Are Bowen, we do a lot of work in the medical malpractice space, and sadly, we see the impacts of these issues in the inquiries that cross our desks every week. In a medical malpractice claim, the law requires us to prove a number of legal elements. We have to prove the standard of care, a breach of that standard, causation of injuries arising from any breaches, and then we have to try to calculate the dollar value of damages arising from those injuries. So that does not change because racism or bias is part of the story. But bias can matter in very practical ways. If a patient is assumed to be intoxicated, drug-seeking, homeless, exaggerating, or unreliable, it can affect triage, it can affect charting. It can affect diagnosis, it can affect pain management, it can affect whether tests are ordered, it can affect whether a patient is admitted, transferred, monitored, or sent home.

Cynthia Carels 8:51

And those assumptions can become part of that patient's medical record. And in the work that that we do, we well, and this is something Toby gets to do all summer long, is look through these charts in in great depth. And in our work, you know, we sometimes see the charting that labels a patient as difficult, uh dramatic, non-compliant, and and we do see this drug-seeking behavior noted all the time uh without enough clinical basis. And those labels can actually follow the patient through their course of interactions with the medical system. So, you know, the next person who interacts with that person is gonna pick up that chart, and they might read and see that label before they see the person.

Warren Berg 9:33

Now, this sounds really dangerous. I mean, uh a note in a chart might sound small, but it it really can shape the whole path of care. So maybe in a few words in a chart can have a real effect?

Cynthia Carels 9:43

Absolutely. You know, a chart note is not just a record of care, uh, it's also a communication tool. And one nurse is gonna write something, the next nurse is gonna read it, uh, the knock doctor writes something down, and then the next doctor might rely on it. And if the first note in that chart is based on a stereotype, it can spread that stereotype throughout the chart.

Toby Vickar 10:06

And from a legal point of view, the medical chart can become key evidence. The words used in the record can show what the provider was thinking, it can show what they focused on, and it can also show what they ignored. Sometimes the most important thing is not only what is written, but what

Joyce Echaquan And Brian Sinclair

Toby Vickar 10:21

is missing.

Warren Berg 10:21

So maybe let's talk now about uh some of the well-known examples that help people understand this issue.

Toby Vickar 10:27

So one of the best known cases is the death of Joyce Eshiquan in Quebec in 2020. Joyce was an indigenous woman and a mother of seven. She went to hospital with terrible abdominal pain. While she was getting worse, she recorded hospital staff making racist and degrading comments towards her, like, What would your children think seeing you like this? And you made bad choices. She had all four limbs restrained, followed by an abdominal belt restraint, in addition to a pharmaceutical chemical restraint. Joyce deteriorated so much that she became unresponsive and later passed away. A public inquiry followed, and the coroner concluded that the racism and prejudice Joyce faced contributed to her death.

Cynthia Carels 11:07

And in that case, unbeknownst to healthcare workers, their conduct was actually being streamed and recorded on Facebook Live. And Joyce's story is especially important because the public only saw what happened because it was recorded. And most patients don't have that. Most families don't have a Facebook Live video streaming while their loved one is in hospital. Most families aren't going to have direct proof of what was said when they weren't in the room. And so that means many families are left trying to piece things together from records, from memories, witnesses, and you know, expert review. They might know in their gut that their loved one was dismissed, but proving it can be a lot harder.

Warren Berg 11:49

And I also remember another case where an indigenous man died in a Winnipeg emergency department after waiting for hours.

Toby Vickar 11:56

Yeah, that was Brian Sinclair. Brian was a 45-year-old indigenous man and a double amputee. He went to the Health Sciences Center Emergency Department in Winnipeg in 2008. He had a treatable bladder infection. He waited in the emergency department for about 34 hours without being properly assessed or treated, and he died in the waiting room. At the inquest, there was evidence that hospital staff made assumptions about him. Some thought he might be intoxicated, some thought he was homeless, and others thought he was just there to watch television.

Cynthia Carels 12:26

Yeah, it it's just astonishing. Um Professor Brenda Gunn actually wrote a report called Ignored to Death, and she discussed Brian Sinclair's death and the broader problem of Indigenous patients being seen through those stereotypes. One phrase that has stayed with many people is that uh Brian Sinclair was both invisible and overly visible. Uh he was invisible as a patient needing care, but he was overly visible as a target of the healthcare provider's assumptions.

Warren Berg 12:57

That's a very powerful way to put it.

Cynthia Carels 12:59

Yeah, it is. And it really captures the the terrible part of this issue because a patient can be sitting right there. Uh they can be physically patient uh present in the waiting room, but the people responsible for the care may not really see them as a patient in need.

Toby Vickar 13:16

And the same themes keep appearing in newer cases too. So when we talk about Joyce Eshiquon and Brian Sinclair, we are not doing it to suggest these are rare exceptions from the past. We are discussing them because they help people see the patterns that continue to show up in recent inquests,

CMA Apology And System Accountability

Toby Vickar 13:31

complaints, and data.

Warren Berg 13:32

And uh, what about the Canadian Medical Association apology that was in the news not so long ago back in 2024?

Cynthia Carels 13:38

Yeah, it it wasn't that long ago, but it was a big one from September 2024. The Canadian Medical Association actually issued a formal apology for harms that were caused to indigenous peoples by the medical profession. So the CMA acknowledged both past and ongoing harms, and those harms included things like systemic racism, uh, Indian hospitals, forced medical experimentation, forced sterilization, uh, child apprehensions, and substandard, or in many cases, absent care.

Toby Vickar 14:10

The CMA also described a reconciliation plan. That plan includes funding indigenous-led work, reviewing the CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism, supporting Indigenous physicians and learners, and increasing Indigenous representation within the organization. The key point is that an apology is only the first step. It has to lead to action, it has to lead to better training, it has to lead to better policies, and it has to lead to real accountability when patients are harmed.

Cynthia Carels 14:37

And that is why the May 2026 apology from the Manitoba Nursing Regulator is also significant. Because it shows that reconciliation is not only a physician issue, it involves nurses, it involves regulators, hospitals, governments, insurers, and even the broader legal system.

Warren Berg 14:54

And it sounds like the health system is being asked to look inward.

Cynthia Carels 14:58

Yeah, uh, and it's uncomfortable, but but clearly it's necessary. Uh, the point is not to say here that every doctor or nurse is a bad person or a racist. Uh that's not fair, and it's not accurate either. Uh many healthcare workers are doing their very best in a very strange system. Uh, but those good intentions don't erase harm. A person can mean well and still make assumptions. A hospital can have a you know a great mission statement and still have some unsafe practices that are baked in there. And a regulator can set professional standards and still fail to confront racism in a meaningful way.

Toby Vickar 15:36

And from our side as lawyers, we also have to be humble about that. The legal system has not always been safe or fair for Indigenous people either. So when an indigenous family calls a law firm after an injury or death in the health system, they may be stepping from one intimidating system into another. At Weir Bowen, we do our best to make sure that our clients feel heard and supported from the first time they contact us.

Warren Berg 15:57

So today we're talking about medical malpractice cases that result in serious injuries, but also wrongful death claims?

Toby Vickar 16:05

Yes, exactly. And now obviously we can't talk about our private client matters on the radio, but we can explain how these cases can become legal claims more generally. Many of the public stories we have discussed involved catastrophic outcomes, including death. So for the rest of today's show, we want to focus on wrongful death claims or fatality claims in Alberta, including how they work in medical malpractice cases.

Cynthia Carels 16:26

Yeah, and we're gonna break that down into a few parts as well. So, first we're going to talk about who can actually bring the claim. Uh secondly, we're going to talk about the specifics of what these kinds of claims are actually for. Uh, and third, we're going to talk about what sorts of damages or or compensation can be claimed. Um, and finally, we're going to talk about what changes when the death arises from medical negligence, like we've been talking about so far, uh, instead of, for example, something like a motor vehicle

How To Reach The Lawyers

Cynthia Carels 16:52

collision.

Warren Berg 16:52

And so before we get into that, this is probably a a good time to tell our listeners how they can reach you if they have questions about a possible medical malpractice, personal injury, or fatality claim.

Toby Vickar 17:02

So the easiest way to contact us is to go to our website at wearbowen.com. That is W E-I-R-B-O-W-E-N.com. On the contact page, there is a form you can fill out, and our reception team will make sure the inquiry gets to the right people.

Cynthia Carels 17:18

And if the internet is not an option or if it's not preferred, you can also call to our main reception line. Uh, that's at 780-424-2030.

Warren Berg 17:29

This is AskTheLoyer on WinSpeaker Radio, C FWE and CJWE. I'm your host, Warren Berg, and joining us today, Cynthia Carrolls and Toby Vicker of Wearbowen L L P in Edmonton. Once again, that's W-E-I-R-B-O-W-E-N. You can reach them at 780-424-2030 or online at Weirbowen.com. And today we're talking about medical prejudice toward indigenous patients and how serious failures in care can intersect with wrongful death

Wrongful Death Claims In Alberta

Warren Berg 17:58

claims. Now, Cynthia, how is a wrongful death claim different from an ordinary personal injury claim?

Cynthia Carels 18:04

So the first difference is uh quite basic, but it's obviously very important. So when someone has passed away, that individual is no longer alive to retain us or instruct us as lawyers. So in a typical personal injury case, the injured person is our client, unless they're a child or an adult who lacks legal capacity. But in a fatality claim, we're going to have to figure out who actually has legal authority to even bring the claim, as well as who the claim can be brought for.

Toby Vickar 18:34

Yeah, and that first step can be more complicated than people expect. A family may call and say, My mom died because of poor care, or my brother died after a crash. The first thing we need to do is understand the family structure. Was there a will? Was there an executor? Was the person married? Did they have an adult interdependent partner? Did they have children? Are their parents alive?

Warren Berg 18:55

So why does all of that matter so much?

Cynthia Carels 18:57

Well, because Alberta actually has very specific legis legislation that tells us who can sue and what they can claim for. So historically, we'll do a little bit of a history lesson here. Uh, the common law, you know, prior to this legislation being written, uh, it was it was pretty harsh. So personal injury actions themselves generally would not survive if the person actually died. And so that meant family members did not have an automatic right to sue for the wrongful death of a loved one. So without specific legislation, uh a person's rights could essentially die with them, leaving their family members with no way to pursue accountability for the losses that they've suffered.

Warren Berg 19:41

That seems shockingly unfair.

Cynthia Carels 19:43

It it truly was. And it actually also led to kind of a troubling reality because in some situations, this is going to sound terribly crass, but at the nuts and bolts of it, really, it could be financially cheaper to accidentally kill somebody than to accidentally injure them. And if a seriously injured person survived, they might have a very large claim for pain and suffering, their loss of income, all of their future care and household help. But if they died, the common law did not actually leave the family with any sort of meaningful claim.

Toby Vickar 20:19

As society changed, that result became harder and harder to justify. More people were dying because of workplace accidents, dangerous products, motor vehicle collisions, and medical negligence. Families were being left without support. Legislatures had to step in.

Survival Of Actions Vs Fatal Accidents

Cynthia Carels 20:34

So in Alberta, two very important statutes are what we call the Survival of Actions Act as well as the Fatal Accidents Act. So that first one, the Survival of Actions Act, preserves certain claims for the benefit of the deceased person's estate. The Fatal Accidents Act uh actually goes on to create claims for certain surviving family members as well as dependents.

Warren Berg 20:59

So let's get a little deeper into that. Let's start with the Survival of Actions Act. What does it do?

Cynthia Carels 21:05

So, in very basic terms, it actually just allows certain rights of action to continue after a person dies. So their estate can pursue damages that resulted in actual financial loss to that deceased person or to the estate. But there are some limits to that. For example, the estate generally can't recover damages for the deceased person's pain and suffering, let's say, after death.

Warren Berg 21:29

So the estate does not simply receive everything the person might have claimed if they had survived?

Toby Vickar 21:35

That's correct. So the legislation preserves the action, but it also limits the damages. It is not a full substitute for the personal injury claim the deceased would have had had they lived. A simple example may help. So if somebody was injured by negligence, survived for a period of time, and had out of pocket costs before they died, the estate may be able to claim some of those actual financial losses. But the estate is not usually going to claim. A large pain and suffering award on behalf of the person who has passed away. That's why the Fatal Accidents Act is so important. It gives certain family members and dependents their own claim arising from the death.

Who Can Bring The Claim

Warren Berg 22:12

So who can bring about this type of claim?

Cynthia Carels 22:14

So the starting point in these fatal accident claims is that the action is usually brought by and in the name of the executor or the administrator of that deceased person's estate. That is, if the deceased actually had a will. So the executor named in the will is usually the person that we're going to look to first. But obviously there are many people who die without a will. And if there is not a will, the family might need to consider getting an administrator appointed by the courts. So that's a person who is actually given legal authority by the court to manage that individual's estate. And that can be important for many reasons, not only for a lawsuit. It could be needed to deal with bank accounts or property, taxes, or you know, other estate issues.

Warren Berg 23:02

And what happens if there's no executor or administrator yet?

Toby Vickar 23:06

So the Fatal Accidents Act has a practical workaround. If there is no executor or administrator, or if the executor or administrator does not bring the action within the one year after death, the action may be brought by or in the name of the people for whose benefit the action would have been brought.

Warren Berg 23:22

So does that mean that basically every family member can start their own lawsuit?

Cynthia Carels 23:26

No.

Warren Berg 23:27

Okay.

Cynthia Carels 23:27

But that is a really key point because the legislation is also designed so that there is only one action that can be associated with that death. So when we're contacted by families, we actually need to identify all of the potential eligible beneficiaries and make sure that the claim is brought in a way that can that includes all of the people who have a right to be included. So that helps to avoid a situation where, you know, a spouse brings one lawsuit, a child brings another, um, and another family member uh brings a third. Uh one death is not supposed to lead to a pile of competing lawsuits, uh, but it does mean we actually have to be really careful at the start uh and to do a lot of upfront due diligence.

Warren Berg 24:11

Now it seems to me that this kind of thing might uh bring up a bunch of family complications that might come up in practice. Yeah.

Toby Vickar 24:18

Certainly does. Uh modern families do not always fit neatly into statutory boxes. There may be stepparents, stepchildren, estranged parents, biological parents who were not involved, children whose parentage has not been legally established, adult interdependent partners, or people who were relying on the deceased even though they were not legally related in the most obvious way.

Cynthia Carels 24:39

And some parts of the Fatal Accidents Act are broader. Uh some elements of it are quite narrow. For example, uh there is a section relating to bereavement damages, you know, for for technically I guess for grief. Um, and those are set by statute and they are payable to certain defined family members, whether they're grieving or they're not. Um and then there's other uh chapters that leave um options for dependency claims. So that's going to require us to look a little bit more closely at who was actually receiving support and valuable services.

Bereavement Damages Explained

Warren Berg 25:13

So let's talk about bereavement damages. What exactly are those?

Toby Vickar 25:17

So bereavement damages are a fixed amount of money set by the legislation for the grief of certain family members. Now, importantly, they are not meant to put a true value on the person's life. They just cannot do that. They are a set amount that the law provides to certain people. As of now in Alberta, the amounts are $82,000 for a spouse or adult interdependent partner if they were not living separate and apart from the deceased. It also includes $49,000 for each child and $82,000 for the parents. If both parents are alive and included, they share that $82,000. If only one parent is alive, then that parent receives the full amount.

Warren Berg 25:54

And those numbers are fixed?

Toby Vickar 25:55

Yes, they are. They are not based on proving who loved the deceased more. In one sense, that is helpful because it avoids putting grieving family members through the awful task of proving the value of their grief. In another sense, it can feel very unfair because real family relationships are complicated.

Cynthia Carels 26:12

Yeah, for example, we might have an estranged biological parent who actually qualifies for these bereavement damages, while, you know, a step parent who raised the person might not qualify in the same way. You might have an adult child who was very, very close to the deceased, uh, and another who hadn't spoken to them in years and years, but both may fall under that same statutory category and be entitled to that claim of $49,000 each, regardless of the relationship.

Warren Berg 26:41

Now this sounds like it could create a whole lot of difficult conversations.

Cynthia Carels 26:44

It really can. And these are actually some of the hardest conversations we have in fatality claims. Uh the family is, you know, obviously grieving and shocked, and then we have to explain to them that the law just draws lines that may not actually match the family's lived reality. Uh and our job is not to say that this legislation is emotionally perfect, because it is not, it's far from it. But our job is to explain what the law allows, uh, to make sure that the eligible people are properly identified, and to avoid problems that could hurt the claim uh later down the road.

Warren Berg 27:20

What other damages can family members claim?

Toby Vickar 27:23

There can be claims for expenses. So that might include things like funeral expenses, grief counseling, travel expenses, or other costs connected to the injury and death.

Dependency Loss And Expert Evidence

Toby Vickar 27:33

There can also be claims for loss of dependency. That is often the largest and most complex part of a fatality claim.

Warren Berg 27:39

Aaron Powell So let's talk about that a little bit more. What does loss of dependency mean?

Cynthia Carels 27:43

So it means the financial support, um, unpaid services, and household contributions that the deceased would likely have provided to those family members if they had not died. So we're asking, you know, what did this person do for the family and what would they likely have continued to do? Uh so let's use the example of a surviving spouse. That might include a share of reliance on the deceased income, and it could also include, you know, some of the household work. For dependent children, it can include financial support through childhood, and even sometimes into post-secondary education.

Toby Vickar 28:20

And it's important to remember that household work has real value. Things like cooking, cleaning, childcare, driving children to appointments, helping with homework, doing repairs, caring for an elderly parent, managing a household budget, these things are work. And if they're lost, someone else has to do them, or the family member may have to pay for help.

Warren Berg 28:39

Now, does a child's dependency claim end when they turn 18?

Toby Vickar 28:44

So not always. The analysis depends on the child and the family. Many children remain financially dependent on their parents into their early twenties, especially if they attend college, university, trades training, or another program.

Cynthia Carels 28:56

So we're gonna look at the family circumstances. You know, what was that deceased parent's income? What was the overall household income? What were this family's plans? Uh was post-secondary education expected? Was money being saved? Uh, did older siblings go to school, and what kind of support was likely?

Warren Berg 29:14

So this is very fact-specific.

Cynthia Carels 29:16

Oh, very much so. Uh so a child who is sixteen and planning to attend university is going to have a very different claim than a child who's already, you know, independent and working full-time. Or, you know, a child with a disability or lifelong support uh needs they they could have a claim that extends much, much further.

Toby Vickar 29:35

And that's where experts often become very important. We may need economists to calculate financial support, we may need vocational experts to estimate what the deceased would likely have earned. We might need occupational therapists to value household services, and we may need life expectancy experts if there were health issues that affected how long the deceased was likely to keep working or providing support.

Warren Berg 29:56

This sounds expensive. Do families need to pay all of that up front?

Toby Vickar 30:00

So usually no. If we accept a case, we often work under a contingency fee agreement. That means that our fee is a percentage of the recovery at the end of the day, either by way of a negotiated settlement or collection on a judgment issued by the courts. These kinds of arrangements help reduce the access to justice problem for families who could not afford hourly legal fees and expert costs while also dealing with grief and financial stress.

Cynthia Carels 30:24

Yeah, those expert reports can be expensive. Um, and medical malpractice cases like we've been talking about today can take years. So a contingency arrangement can actually allow families to pursue a claim that would otherwise be out of reach.

What Families Need For Intake

Warren Berg 30:38

Now, before we even get to these experts, what information do you need from the families in that first call?

Cynthia Carels 30:43

So usually we're gonna start with the basics. So, first of all, you know, when and where did the care happen? Uh when did the person actually pass away? Who does the family believe might have been responsible? Um, you know, are questions around liabil liability for the for the death obvious, or is it still pretty unclear? Uh we're also gonna want to know if the person died right away or if they lived for a period of time before passing away. And then we're gonna get into the details about that family structure. So was the person married? Did they have an adult interdependent partner? How many kids did they have? Were those kids minors or the adults? Um, you know, are either or both of the individuals' parents still living? Uh we're also gonna want to know, you know, about stepchildren and other dependents, uh, and if anyone else was relying on that deceased for money, uh, for care or for household support. And then we're gonna be trying to get a better sense of, you know, that deceased person's age, their overall health, uh, their job, their income, their education, and their roles in the home. And you know, a lot of those questions can feel very, very personal, uh, and and we know that. We try to be very respectful of that, but it is going to be really necessary information to help us understand the claim.

Warren Berg 31:56

And what if the caller doesn't have all of that information?

Toby Vickar 31:59

That is absolutely fine. Most people calling after a death do not have everything organized. They may be grieving, overwhelmed, they may still be waiting for a coroner's report, hospital records, or even basic answers. The important thing is not to delay calling just because you do not have every document. We can help identify what matters and what can be gathered later.

Limitation Periods And Key Dates

Cynthia Carels 32:19

And delay can be a real problem because limitation periods do apply. In Alberta, the usual limitation period is two years from the time the claim was discovered or it ought to have been discovered. Now there are exceptions to that rule, including for minors and some adults who lack legal capacity, but no one should assume that their case is going to attract an exception uh without getting legal advice.

Toby Vickar 32:45

And especially in fatality cases, the timeline can be tricky. The negligent act may have happened on one date, the diagnosis may have been discovered later, the person may have died later still. In a delayed cancer diagnosis, for example, the key dates may include the missed test, the later diagnosis, the date the family learned the diagnosis should have been made earlier, and the date of death.

Cynthia Carels 33:07

And we sometimes see whole lawsuits fought over whether a claim was actually started in time. And so that's why we always tell people do not try to calculate the limitation period on your own if there is any uncertainty. Call and get specific advice that is specific to the facts of your potential case. Um and, you know, as always, what we're saying on the radio is just general information only. It's not legal advice for any specific matter because those facts do matter and those dates matter, uh, and those exceptions matter too.

Warren Berg 33:39

And we talk a lot about exceptions here. You had mentioned earlier that the law has changed over time. Was there maybe a case that drove some of this reform?

Cynthia Carels 33:48

Yeah, there actually was. Um, a case that Alberta lawyers often talk about, uh, we deal with it in law school a lot. Uh it's called Duncan and Badley. And it involved the wrongful death of a 16-year-old high school student. And the case raised some pretty hard questions about whether or not the estate of a young person could claim for the value of the income that young person would likely have earned over the course of their life, even though he may never have financially supported his parents, who ended up being the beneficiaries of his estate.

Toby Vickar 34:20

And the concern was that these lost years claims could create windfalls in some cases. Eventually, the legislation moved away from allowing the estate to recover the full projected lifetime income of the deceased. Instead, the focus in fatality claims became the actual financial dependency of the survivors. So, in practical terms, we ask what support, services, or money would this family member likely have received from the deceased if that death had not happened?

Cynthia Carels 34:46

And that's why these cases are so individualized. You know, a young single adult with no dependence may have a very different claim than a parent of three young children. Um, you know, whereas a retired person may have a very different claim than a high-earning spouse in their thirties, and a homemaker may have a substantial household services claim even if they weren't earning income outside the home.

Warren Berg 35:07

So the value of the claim is not really about the moral seriousness of the death.

Toby Vickar 35:12

Exactly. Causing a death is morally devastating, full stop. But civil damages are not designed to put a true price on a life. They are designed to compensate for categories of loss that the law recognizes. And that can be very frustrating for families. The legal categories can feel very small compared to the human loss.

Cynthia Carels 35:30

And that is one of the hardest parts of our job. We have to explain. Obviously, no number is going to be enough. And the law doesn't compensate for every kind of grief, trauma, anger, or injustice. But a claim can still matter, and it can provide some financial security. It can help those dependents who are left behind, uh, and it can force records to be gathered and lead to expert reviews. So it can bring some accountability too.

Proving Causation In Malpractice

Warren Berg 35:54

So how does this analysis change in medical malpractice cases?

Cynthia Carels 35:57

Well, in every negligence case, we have to prove a number of elements, um, liability, uh, causation of injuries and damages. But uh medical malpractice cases like the ones we've been talking about today, particularly you know the ones involving um First Nations patients, um, they have a more technical causation damage. So, you know, if a person dies in a motor vehicle collision, the link between the crash and the death can be pretty direct. But in medicine, the question is often whether that negligence or the bias, um, you know, the racism, whatever the wrongdoing was, actually materially changed the outcome for that patient. Can you maybe give us an example?

Toby Vickar 36:38

Sure. So a delay in diagnosing cancer is a really good example. We're not saying that the doctor caused the cancer. We are saying that the doctor should have diagnosed it earlier, and that earlier diagnosis would likely have changed the outcome. That requires expert evidence from oncologists. We need to know what stage the cancer likely was at at the earlier point. We need to know what treatment would have been available. We also need to know whether the earlier treatment likely would have avoided the death or prolonged the person's life.

Cynthia Carels 37:05

And sometimes the answer is clear. You know, sometimes that delay made a major difference. Um, but in other cases, the cancer may have already been so advanced that earlier diagnosis, even if it was possible, might not have actually changed the outcome enough to support a claim. And that's why, you know, getting these experts involved to provide expert evidence is so essential.

Toby Vickar 37:27

And another example is sepsis. Sepsis is a serious response to infection. It can get worse very quickly. If someone presents with concerning symptoms and the diagnosis or treatment is delayed, experts may need to tell us whether earlier antibiotics, fluids, monitoring, imaging, surgery, or transfer would likely have prevented the death.

Cynthia Carels 37:48

And that's one of the reasons that um the Heather Winterstein inquest is relevant to today's discussion because it involved delayed treatment of sepsis and it raised issues about how symptoms were interpreted and acted upon.

Warren Berg 38:02

And what about aneurysms? I think you've talked about that before.

Toby Vickar 38:06

Yeah, so an aneurysm is an abnormal bulge or ballooning in the wall of a blood vessel. And many people think that aneurysms are impossible to catch before they rupture, but some aneurysms give warning signs. A person may have severe pain, unusual symptoms, or imaging done for another reason that shows the aneurysm.

Cynthia Carels 38:24

And if the warning signs are missed or if imaging isn't followed up on properly and the aneurysm later ruptures, we may need expert evidence about whether earlier diagnos uh diagnosis and treatment would likely have prevented the death. And people can be very surprised that surgical or medical treatment of some aneurysms can be very effective when the problem is caught in time. So in some delay cases, the legal question becomes did the healthcare team miss a chance to treat something that likely could have otherwise been treated?

Warren Berg 38:52

And what about surgery cases? Uh people often hear that death is a known risk of surgery.

Toby Vickar 38:58

That is true. So in many surgeries, death is a known risk, but that doesn't end the analysis. A known risk is not the same thing as acceptable care. So the question in these cases is whether the surgery was done according to the standard of care. Was the surgeon in the right area? Were important structures identified? Was bleeding recognized and managed properly? Was the patient monitored after surgery? Were signs of a complication acted on in time?

Cynthia Carels 39:23

And sometimes the issue is not that a complication happened. Sometimes the issue is how the complication happened or how the healthcare team responded once it did happen. So, for example, you know, if bleeding occurs in a surgery, the fact that bleeding is a known risk doesn't automatically mean that there was no negligence. We're going to need to know where that bleeding came from and whether it was actually consistent with reas reasonable surgical

Assumptions That Change Medical Care

Cynthia Carels 39:49

techniques.

Warren Berg 39:49

So since we've been talking about bias, particularly against indigenous First Nations Métis patients, anyway, uh where does that bias fit into the legal analysis?

Toby Vickar 39:59

So bias can fit in in many ways. It can be relevant to our analysis with respect to breaches of the standard of care. So for example, if a patient's pain complaints were dismissed because of assumptions about drug use, or if a patient was discharged without proper investigation because they were treated as unreliable, that may be part of why the care fell below the expected standard.

Cynthia Carels 40:19

And bias can also matter to causation. So if discriminatory assumptions caused a delay in triage, assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or transfer, and that delay actually materially changed the outcome, then the bias isn't just a moral issue. It can actually be part of the technical chain of causation in a legal claim.

Toby Vickar 40:41

Yeah, and bias obviously matters to damages and to the family's experience as well. Families often come to us not only because someone died, but because they believe their loved one was not treated as fully human. They want accountability, answers, and some assurance that what happened will not happen to another family.

Warren Berg 40:57

Can you maybe give us an example of how an assumption might affect care?

Cynthia Carels 41:01

So, like Toby's highlighted, a really common example is pain. If a patient is assumed to be drug seeking, uh their pain may not be taken seriously. That can lead to delayed testing, poor monitoring, and even unsafe discharge without a proper diagnosis at all. But severe pain can be a sign of infection, of internal bleeding, you know, a heart problem, a clot, an aneurysm, or many other serious conditions. And if those aren't properly diagnosed and treated, it can lead to disastrous outcomes, uh, sometimes catastrophic disabilities, uh, and even death.

Toby Vickar 41:39

Another example is intoxication. So if a patient is assumed to be intoxicated, staff may attribute confusion, vomiting, weakness, or unusual behavior to alcohol or drugs. But those same signs can also come from head injury, stroke, infection, low blood sugar, medication problems, or many other medical issues. It is so incredibly important to make sure the triage and treatment team doesn't jump to the wrong conclusion based on improper assumptions.

Cynthia Carels 42:05

And another big assumption we see is non-compliance. So sometimes a chart is going to say that a patient has been non-compliant with you know reasonable medical advice, but nobody actually asks why. They're not getting to the roots of the issue that might better explain what's actually going on here. You know, did the patient actually understand the instructions they were supposed to follow? Were the instructions given in plain language? Was there actually a language barrier in the first place? But there can also be other underlying things like could the patient actually afford the treatment or the medication? Uh do they live in a remote community that doesn't have a pharmacy or a physiotherapy clinic? Do they have access to reliable transportation? Did they have a safe place to go and recover? Um, or, you know, did they have a fundamental distrust of the system because of past harm? And those kinds of details matter too. A safe healthcare system should be asking why something is happening, not just labeling a patient as a problem.

Warren Berg 43:09

Yeah, that also seems like it could connect to discharge planning.

Toby Vickar 43:13

It absolutely does. Discharge is a major safety point. A patient may be told to return if symptoms get worse, but that instruction is not always enough. The healthcare team needs to think about the patient's actual situation. Can they get back to the hospital? Do they have a phone? Do they understand what symptoms are dangerous? Do they need follow-up booked for them instead of being told to arrange it themselves? This is especially important when a patient is vulnerable, very sick, living in remote communities, or at risk of not being heard if they return. A discharge plan that works for one patient may not work for another.

Steps Families Can Take Now

Warren Berg 43:46

If a family thinks that maybe racism or bias bias played a role, what should they do?

Cynthia Carels 43:51

You know, honestly, they should be calling a lawyer sooner rather than later. Like we've spoken about, there are limitation periods, and the the usual deadline to file a Claim in Alberta is two years from when the claim was discovered or ought to have been discovered. And again, we've talked about exceptions there. But getting that legal advice right out of the gate is important. And another thing that's really good to do is write down a timeline while those memories are still fresh. That's going to be including dates, hospitals, names of people who were involved if you know them, the symptoms that the person was presenting with, what was said, what the family saw, and what changed over time. Thirdly, you're going to want to save documents because that may include things like, you know, discharge papers or things that somebody wrote down on a medication list, you know, text messages, photos, appointments, you know, even business cards that you're given by the clinic or the or the hospitals. Um, you know, any letters that are written, responses to complaints, recordings, names of witnesses, all of those things. And if there were family members at the hospital, you're going to want to write down who was there and what they remember as well, because those memories will fade over time. Um, and fourth, you just don't want to assume that that hospital chart is going to tell the whole story. Uh so we have spoken about medical records being very important, but they are not perfect, they're not conclusive. And sometimes records are incomplete. Uh, sometimes it's going to leave out key conversations. Um, and sometimes it's going to again include those labels that reveal some of those baked-in assumptions as well. And you know, like Toby said earlier, sometimes what's missing is actually just as important as what's getting

Investigations, Lawsuits, And Settlements

Cynthia Carels 45:32

written down.

Warren Berg 45:32

So what happens when somebody calls your office?

Toby Vickar 45:35

So when someone calls us, we're gonna first ask for the basic timeline, where the care happened, what the family believes went wrong, when the person died, and who the potential family members and dependents are. We will also ask about the deceased person's age, occupation, income, household role, children, spouse or partner, and parents. And importantly, we do not expect callers to have everything perfectly organized. Our job is to ask the right questions. If the case appears potentially viable, we may request records and have them reviewed by medical experts. In many medical malpractice files, we need expert support before we can properly advise on whether the claim should proceed. That is because the legal test is not simply whether the outcome was tragic. We need evidence that the care fell below the standard and that the failure likely changed the outcome.

Warren Berg 46:21

Now, should listeners have a question and want to call the team at Weirbowen LLP, they can be reached at 780-424-2030. You can also uh see their website online at Weirbowen.com. That's 780-424-2030 online at WEIRBOWEN.com. So, Cynthia, making the call is just the first step in what sounds like a pretty lengthy journey. Do these cases take a lot of time?

Cynthia Carels 46:50

Generally speaking, yeah. Yeah, they do. Uh medical malpractice cases are expert-driven and often take years, even though we try to press them forward as quickly as we can, uh, to the extent that we have control over the process, and it's reasonable to do so. But that is another reason it's important to call early, because we're going to need to have some time to obtain those records, identify the right experts, uh, assess any of those limitation issues, and to determine who can be included in the claim. And there can also be other processes happening at the same time. There might be a complaint to a regulator, there might be an internal hospital review, there may be a patient relations process or a fatality inquirer uh inquiry or a coroner's inquest. Pardon me. Uh and those processes matter, but they don't replace legal advice about a potential civil claim.

Warren Berg 47:40

So can families rely on a hospital investigation to tell them whether or not they have a lawsuit?

Toby Vickar 47:45

Hospital investigations certainly can be helpful, but importantly, that process is not the same as an independent legal review. The hospital is looking at the matter through its own process. A regulator is looking at professional conduct. A coroner or medical examiner may be looking at cause and manner of death and public safety recommendations, but civil claims have their own legal tests. So following investigations by hospitals and regulators, families sometimes will receive a letter saying, in effect, we are sorry for your experience, or we have reviewed the care and found it was appropriate. But that does not necessarily answer the legal questions that we as lawyers might have, and it certainly does not mean that the family is wrong to ask for legal advice.

Warren Berg 48:26

And what about cases where maybe the family wants answers more than money?

Cynthia Carels 48:31

That's a very common experience, and many families do tell us that this isn't about the money, and we understand that. But the civil justice system that we work in mainly deals with compensation, so money is the remedy that it has. At the same time, a lawsuit can also bring some answers. Uh it can lead to productions of records, it can lead to expert reviews, it can require critical people to answer tough questions, uh, and it can create pressure for a very serious examination of what happened. And for many families that matters. Yeah, it might not be the same as a public apology or a system-wide reform, but it can still be a form of accountability.

Warren Berg 49:13

Do these claims always go to trial?

Toby Vickar 49:15

No, they don't. So many cases resolve before trial. Some resolve through negotiation, some at mediation, some resolve after expert reports are exchanged. But we prepare each serious case with the understanding that trial is possible. That goes back to the Canadian lawyer article and Cynthia's quote: We negotiate from preparation, not from hope. And if the other side knows the case has been built properly, that affects the discussion. It is much harder to dismiss a claim when the records are organized, the evidence is clear, the expert opinions are strong, and the damages have been carefully calculated.

Warren Berg 49:50

What would make medical malpractice cases harder than some other injury cases?

Cynthia Carels 49:56

Well, one challenge is that bad outcomes can happen to patients even with reasonable care. Medicine itself, very complicated, and not every death is caused by someone's negligence. And not every delay changes the outcome either, and not every mistake is actually going to meet the legal tests that we're looking for. And another challenge is that defendants in medical malpractice cases usually have strong resources. Hospitals and doctors are often defended by very experienced legal counsel and are supported by insurers or defense organizations with very deep pockets and an army of experts who are happy to defend their colleagues. So that means plaintiffs, you know, the people who are bringing these cases, actually need to have their own case prepared very carefully and strategically. And another obviously huge challenge on our side of the table is uh that emotional one. Families are often grieving while also trying to understand complicated medical language, um, you know, legal definitions and deadlines, as well as expert opinions, and that's a

Plain Language And Safer Care

Cynthia Carels 51:03

lot to carry.

Warren Berg 51:03

So how do you keep the language simple for families when the medicine is very complex?

Toby Vickar 51:09

We try our best to slow it down. We break it into pieces, you know, what was the symptom? What should the provider have considered? What tests should have been ordered? What would the test likely have shown? What treatment would have followed? Would that treatment likely have changed the outcome? We also really try to avoid hiding behind jargon. If we need to use medical terms, we explain them. If we need to talk about causation, we explain that that means the link between the mistake and the harm.

Cynthia Carels 51:35

And this actually really matters because families deserve to understand what's going on in their own case. They should not feel like the law and medicine are actually being used to shut them out of the process.

Warren Berg 51:47

Aaron Powell So let's go back to Indigenous patients. What do you want healthcare providers to understand from these cases?

Toby Vickar 51:54

I would say slow down before making assumptions. If a patient is in pain, believe that pain needs assessment. If a patient has a history of substance use, that does not mean that their symptoms are not real. If a patient is upset or distrustful, ask what happened to make them feel unsafe. If a family member is advocating strongly, do not write them off as difficult.

Cynthia Carels 52:15

Yeah, and I'm also going to add, you know, chart very carefully and respectfully. Words matter and avoid labels unless they are actually clinically supported. And if a patient refuses something, record that discussion and the reason if known. And if a patient is discharged, make sure that there is a plan in place that is clear, that is safe, and is realistic for that patient.

Toby Vickar 52:40

And for institutions, the point is much bigger than one training module. Cultural awareness and safety has to show up in triage, staffing, supervision, complaint review, discharge planning, and leadership.

Warren Berg 52:52

And what do you want the families to understand?

Cynthia Carels 52:54

Oh, for families, if you feel that something was wrong, you are allowed to ask questions, you're allowed to request records, and you're allowed to make a complaint. You're also allowed to speak with a lawyer, and you do not have to know the legal answers before you call.

Toby Vickar 53:11

And if you are an indigenous patient or family member who has had a harmful experience in the health system, we understand that calling a law firm may feel intimidating. We try very hard to approach these calls with respect, care, and humility. We know that we are asking about painful events.

Cynthia Carels 53:26

And truly, this is also why We're Bowen has been so committed to the Ask the Lawyer program over the years, because we actually want to introduce ourselves as approachable lawyers who can risk you know speak respectfully, but also in plain language so that listeners can judge for themselves. You know, before they ever even think about picking up the phone. Uh, they're gonna know us a little bit. And and we also know that not every call is going to become a lawsuit. Um sometimes after expert review, we might have to have a really hard conversation with a family to tell them that the legal tests aren't met. And that can be very, very hard. But e even then, when we're you know when we're saying no, we do try to explain those reasons carefully, uh clearly, respectfully, and in a trauma-informed fashion.

Final Takeaways And Contact Info

Warren Berg 54:13

We've covered a lot of ground today, but before we wrap up, uh can we maybe summarize the uh the main takeaway points from all of this?

Toby Vickar 54:21

Absolutely. So the first point I would say is that fatality claims are governed by specific legislation. In Alberta, the two main statutes that we talked about are the Survival of Actions Act and the Fatal Accidents Act. So as lawyers, we need to identify the proper person to bring the claim and the proper people who may benefit from it. That may include an executor, administrator, spouse, adult interdependent partner, children, parents, and dependents.

Cynthia Carels 54:46

And the second point is that the damages we're seeking in these kinds of lawsuits are not really based on putting a true price on the value of a life. The law is going to be looking at specific categories, including those damages for bereavement and grief, funeral and related expenses, loss of dependency, and household services. And in order to do that, we're going to rely heavily on expert evidence. We're going to need to know whether or not that care fell below the standard and whether that failure likely changed the outcome for the individual.

Toby Vickar 55:20

And finally, the really big point that we want to drive home today is that bias and racism can be legally relevant when they affect triage, assessment, diagnosis, treatment, discharge, or follow-up.

Warren Berg 55:32

Indeed. And from what I'm hearing from both of you today, racism in healthcare is not only a historical wrong, but it's still being documented in current inquests, current data, current apologies, and public health reporting.

Toby Vickar 55:44

Absolutely. When a patient is stereotyped or dismissed, that can have real clinical consequences. It can change how pain is treated, it can change how symptoms are understood, and it can change whether a patient gets the tests or monitoring that they need. And when those consequences are catastrophic, families may have legal options.

Cynthia Carels 56:02

And again, I'm going to add wrongful death claims, again, not about putting a true value on that life. No legal award can do that. But they can be about accountability, uh, about trying to get some financial security and support for dependence, uh, recognition of loss, and sometimes forcing a closer look at what actually went wrong.

Toby Vickar 56:22

And for Indigenous and First Nations families in particular, we recognize that calling a law firm after a terrible experience in the health system can feel like stepping into yet another institution that may not feel safe. We do not take that lightly. Our role is to listen carefully, ask respectful questions, and investigate whether the law can help.

Warren Berg 56:40

Now, before we close, let's remind our listeners how they can reach Weirbowen.

Toby Vickar 56:44

Sure thing. So listeners can reach us at Weirbowen.com. That is W E I R B O W E N dot com. And they can also call us at 780-424-2030.

Cynthia Carels 56:59

And I just want to underscore if someone is not sure whether or not they actually have a viable claim, they can still call. Truly, it's better to ask early than wait too long and potentially risk missing a deadline.

Warren Berg 57:10

We've covered a lot of ground today in the May edition of Ask the Lawyer with Cynthia Carroll and Toby Vicker of We'Bowen L L P in Edmonton in Edmonton. If you would like more information, once again their website, WeirdBowen.com, W E-I-R-B-O-W-E-N.com. Their phone number is 780-424-2030. You can also find a link to Ask the Lawyer on the Weird Bowen homepage as well as the CFWE and CJWE websites where these shows are available to stream on demand. Our thanks once again to Cynthia and Toby for tackling this very important subject this month.

Cynthia Carels 57:44

Yeah, and thanks also to you, Warren. As we're preparing for National Indigenous Indigenous History Month in June, we certainly hope that today's episode helps in some small way to acknowledge the harms caused and also to point towards more accountability and safer care for the audience.

Toby Vickar 58:01

Yeah, and we truly feel honored to assist Indigenous clients and First Nations families who are seeking justice for what has happened to them. Thank you so much for having us on today, Warren.

Warren Berg 58:10

And we look forward to learning much more through this series, which takes place here on the last Saturday of every month on Windspeaker Radio, CFWE and CJWE.