The Manitoba Court of Appeal released a decision that contained a significant analysis of what constitutes a delay in court proceedings, and whether it warrants a dismissal. R. v. Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62 originated as an appeal of a conviction by a jury for aggravated sexual assault, but also claims delay. Hamilton, J.A. also cites the even more recent Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31.
These decisions demonstrate how long it takes for a matter to go from a charge to an acquittal or conviction. Guidance from the Court of Appeal should help keep it in check.
It’s not often that parties are found in contempt in family proceedings. Behaviour has to be extremely egregious to warrant a contempt finding. That’s what Justice Doyle decided in Delichte v. Rogers, 2017 MBQB 117.
 The mother and the father have engaged in high conflict family litigation for over 13 years. During this period, 616 documents have been filed in regard to the many contentious proceedings that have come before this court.
There can be so much tension in family proceedings as both sides try to do what they feel is in the best interests of their children. At some point the court must step in and put a halt to it.
Since I’ve been in law libraries, the legal publishing field has gotten smaller and smaller. Now there’s a new contender – vLex Canada . Shaunna Mireau posted about it on Slaw.ca.
Just in case you haven’t been watching, Maritime Law Book is now Compass and Compass introduced vLex Canada. There are some interesting and useful delighters with vLex Canada Open.
Check it out for yourself.
Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Joyal wrote a lengthy analysis on the topic of delay in R. v. K.G.K., 2017 MBQB 96. This was in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 which laid down the rules governing when charges must be dismissed if it has taken too long to bring the matter to trial.
The Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision on how to apply the Succession Law Reform Act where a husband had been ordered to purchase life insurance to cover his obligations for support. The husband remarried, and changed the beneficiaries of the account to include the second wife and children and of the second marriage. After his death, Wife 1 and Wife 2 claimed entitlement to the insurance proceeds.
Decision: Dagg v. Cameron Estate 2017 ONCA 366
Commentary: From The Lawyer’s Daily: Appeal Decision Shines Light