A frequent request of the library is for research on the validity of a search of a vehicle. This decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal analyses the steps the police must take to ensure compliance with sections 8, 9, 10 and 24(2) of the Charter.
 The appellant appears to urge that this dominant objective in the mind of the police officer, contaminated the interaction with the appellant such as to occasion within the interaction between them the following “cascading” series of Charter breaches: (a) an almost immediate and continuing arbitrary detention contrary to s 9 of the Charter, (b) an improper questioning contrary to s 10 of the Charter, (c) unreasonable searches and seizures under s 8 of the Charter in the forms of a police dog sniffing around the vehicle and a pat down search of the appellant, (d) an unlawful delay in advising the appellant the reason for detention contrary to s 10(a) of the Charter and (e) an unlawful delay of advisement of the appellant’s right to counsel on detention under s 10(b) of the Charter: adapting what this Court said in R v Ali, 2016 ABCA 261 (CanLII) at para 3,  AJ No 914 (QL).
 The appellant goes on to say the evidence of the police seizure of hard drugs and a gun with ammunition from the vehicle should be excluded under s 24(2) of the Charter.
What is interesting to me is that Watson, J. references Crozier v. Cundey, a decision of 1827:
 For what it is worth, the real mitochondrial father of both discretionary powers and limits thereon by police may be Crozier v Cundey (1827), 6 B&C. 232. There, speaking as if it had long been thus, the King’s Bench noted where police might proceed without warrant and when they might not. Crozier need not be dismissed as merely a quirk of history. Tracing its influence through later cases shows it to be a foundation stone on which a significant part of police authority and its limits came to be constructed over the generations.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal released this Reference re Certification in the Manitoba Health Sector, 2019 MBCA 18.
 This matter comes before this Court as a reference from the Manitoba Labour Board (the Board). The Board may refer any question of law for a final determination by this Court (see section 143(4) of TheLabour Relations Act, CCSM c L10 (the LRA)). This reference concerns a controversy that has arisen as to the correct procedure for non-unionised employees in the health sector organising for the purpose of collective bargaining under this new model. The dispute is about who is the appropriate decision-maker as to an application for certification in the health sector. The two possibilities are the Board exercising its authority under the LRA or the Commissioner exercising his authority under the Act.
A unanimous Court determined that the Commissioner is the sole decision-maker for an application for certification in the health sector.
Last year HeinOnline completed a major update to Manitoba legislative content on their service; however, it was missing the 1970 revised statutes and the 1987 re-enacted statutes, as well as a few miscellaneous individual annual statutes. We undertook to ensure Hein had the content to add to their collection, so that all lawyers in Manitoba could conduct legislative research from their desktops.
HeinOnline is just one of the resources available to all members of the Law Society of Manitoba behind the members’ portal. If you haven’t used it yet, consult this guide for assistance.
[Reprinted with permission from the February 2019 edition of Communiqué by Joan Holstrom.]
The CPLED Program has been the Manitoba bar admission course for the past 15 years. It has been delivered through three provincial organizations, the Legal Education Society of Alberta, the Law Society of Saskatchewan-Bar Admission Office and the Law Society of Manitoba. While the past 15 years have successfully launched many law graduates into rewarding careers, it is a program that is due for a refresh to bring it in line with the changing nature of the profession and the practice of law. Technology, diversity, increased cultural and gender awareness and changes in the way legal services are delivered have called out for changes in how we bridge law graduates from being students to being professionals. As a result, CPLED hired a new CEO last spring and significant strides have been taken to redevelop our Bar Admission program into what we are calling CPLED 2.0.
CPLED is preparing to have CPLED 2.0 ready for all articling students in the 2020-2021 year. In anticipation of that, a pilot program offering of CPLED 2.0 will be available for articling students in the 2019-2020 year. The pilot program offered will operate from January 2020 to September 2020. It will be offered at half the tuition cost of the legacy CPLED program which will run during the 2019-2020 year from September 2019 to April 2020. The pilot program will be offered to articling students when registering for the 2019-2020 bar admission year. Please consider allowing your articling student(s) to participate in this pilot program. The pilot program will be of interest to you or your articling student if:
Tuition costs are a concern;
The student cannot start articles before August 2019 (e.g. student is travelling or clerking elsewhere; your firm cannot hire someone before August 2019 due to budget);
The student cannot start CPLED before September 2019 (e.g. still awaiting a Certificate of Qualification from the National Committee on Accreditation).
The CEO of CPLED, Dr. Kara Mitchelmore, will be in Winnipeg during the first week of March and would like to meet with as many employers and principals as possible. Dr. Mitchelmore would like to share with the profession what changes will be forthcoming with CPLED 2.0 and what impact that might have on articling students and their relationships within their workplaces. Larger employers will be contacted directly to set up meetings with Dr. Mitchelmore. If you are a smaller workplace that routinely takes on articling students or if you anticipate taking on an articling student in 2020 or beyond, please contact Joan Holmstrom, the Director of Manitoba CPLED, at 204-926-2017 to attend one of the presentations given by Dr. Mitchelmore on March 4th or on March 8th, 2019.
Recruitment of Practitioners to assist with CPLED 2.0
CPLED 2.0 will require practitioners to assist by providing feedback to students on their submitted work and performances within the formative phases of CPLED 2.0. It will also require practitioners to assist with evaluating students’ work and performance in the evaluative phases of CPLED 2.0. Finally, CPLED 2.0 will require practitioners to act as practice managers for students as they work through CPLED 2.0. These practice managers will act as a resource for students as they develop skills in managing themselves, their work and office systems. If you are, or may be, interested in helping CPLED 2.0 in one of these capacities and you have been called to the Bar for at least 5 years, please send an email to email@example.com setting out:
Your teaching experience;
Academic writing experience;
Your area of expertise;
Your area of interest;
Experience as a mentor or principal.
This will be an enriching experience for lawyers who have a passion for teaching and mentoring. We hope to hear from you.
This webinar will explore recent developments in Canadian law that indicate a new trend toward imposing punitive measures at increasingly earlier stages of the prosecutorial process. The result is a potentially new field of criminal management some academics have dubbed “pre-crime”. Pre-crime, which seeks to use the law as a technology of surveillance, is based upon ideas now seen as commonplace in the era of the “war on terror”. Specifically, the need to ensure security at all costs, the proliferation of digital data, and the development of drones, social networking, and cloud storage to gather personal data. The webinar will be of use to anyone with an interest in criminal law, policing, and surveillance, as well as those interested in how areas of law, such as immigration, health, and anti-terrorism, are mobilizing the logic of risk and surveillance in new ways that emphasize precaution
Dr. Richard Jochelson is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba and holds his PhD in law from Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, a Masters in Law from University of Toronto Law School, and a Law Degree from University of Calgary Law School (Gold Medal). He is a former law clerk who served his articling year at the Alberta Court of Appeal and Court of Queen’s Bench, before working at one of Canada’s largest law firms. He worked for ten years teaching criminal and constitutional law at another Canadian university prior to joining Robson Hall. He has published peer-reviewed articles dealing with obscenity, indecency, judicial activism, police powers, criminal justice pedagogy and curriculum development, empiricism in criminal law, and conceptions of judicial and jury reasoning. He is a member of the Bar of Manitoba and has co-authored and co-edited several books. He has recently co-authored Criminal Law and Precrime: Legal Studies in Canadian Punishment and Surveillance in Anticipation of Criminal Guilt (2018, Routledge).