Great LEXpectations – News and views from the Manitoba Law Library Inc., Law Society of Manitoba

January 14, 2019

Manitoba eLaw – New Edition – Litigation

December 2018, Issue No. 86 Highlights:

Unjust Enrichment Remedy Applies to Insurance Proceeds: SCC (Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52)
Duty to Consult Doctrine Ill-suited to Law-making Process: SCC (Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council), 2018 SCC 40)
Who Bears the Costs of Identifying Online Copyright Infringers: SCC (Rogers Communications Inc. v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2018 SCC 38)
No Appeal from Decision Denying Leave to Appeal: MBCA (Broadband Communications North Inc. v. I-Netlink Incorporated, 2018 MBCA 116)
No Judicial Review of Decisions of Voluntary Associations: MBCA (Bell v. Civil Air Search and Rescue Association et al, 2018 MBCA 96)
2019 Mid-Winter Conference: MBA

The full edition is available here.

January 14, 2019

ICLR Weekly Case Law Update

Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for January 14, 2019.

Decisions covering the following topics:

Crime
Employment
European Union
Public Law
Tax

If you are a member of the Law Society of Manitoba, and would like a copy of any of the decisions from the digest please contact the library and we will be happy to provide those for you.

January 11, 2019

Legislative Updates: New Proclamations

The Government of Manitoba has proclaimed the following Acts:

The Energy Rate Stabilization Repeal Act, S.M. 1991-1992, c. 40, (section 2), effective December 20, 2018.
The Traffic and Transportation Modernization Act, S.M. 2018, c. 10, Schedules A, B, C, D, and E, effective March 1, 2019.
The Regulated Health Professionals Act, S.M. 2009, c. 15, various sections, effective January 1, 2019.
The Planning Amendment Act (Improving Efficiency in Planning), S.M. 2018, c. 14, various sections, effective December 15, 2018.
The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (2), S.M. 2018, c. 15, sections 2, 3, 8, and 14, effective November 26, 2018.
The Film and Video Classification and Distribution Act, S.M. 2018, c. 11, effective December 17, 2018.

January 10, 2019

Decision of the Week

The first “Decision of the Week” concerns an argument that comes up from time to time:

[1] When is a human being a person? Shouldn’t a human being be able to escape a photo-radar ticket fine because The Highway Traffic Act C.C.S.M. c. H60 (“HTA”) does not apply to humans, but rather only to persons?
R. v. Penner, 2018 MBQB 200

Mr. Penner, as agent for his wife, challenged a photo-radar speeding ticket. Martin, J. quashed the appeal orally with written reasons to follow.

[3] I write them not to convey any insightful legal analysis but to provide precedent for the many justices of the peace and provincial court judges who are increasingly facing these specious arguments, gussied up like legal briefs with all the accompanying bafflegab. Those judicial officers should feel confident that they can dismiss nonsensical submissions summarily. And those promoting these points of view should know that their arguments will get the time and attention they deserve, little to none.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench issued a lengthy decision on this issue in 2012, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. While nowhere near as lengthy, perhaps Justice Martin’s decision can be as useful.

January 7, 2019