by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 17, 2019 | Criminal Law, Decision of the Week, Evidence
On January 15, 2019 the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of R. v. Fedyck and rendered the following decision:
The Court — We agree with the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
2019 SCC 3
The original appeal was not unanimous. R. v. Fedyck, 2018 MBCA 74 featured a significant dissent by Justice Beard. The evidence was circumstantial, and the issue on the appeal was whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.
[24] The role of an appellate court, in reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, is to focus on “the question of whether the inferences drawn by the trial judge, having regard to the standard of proof, were reasonably open to him” (Villaroman at para 67).
2018 MBCA 74
by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 14, 2019 | Civil Litigation, Law Society Publications
December 2018, Issue No. 86 Highlights:
The full edition is available here.
by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 14, 2019 | Caselaw, Legal Research, U.K., Uncategorised
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.
by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 11, 2019 | Legislation, 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.
by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 10, 2019 | Criminal Law, 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.
Great LEXpectations RSS Feed