Table of Contents
In the News
Budget season, federal and provincial – On April 7, Budget 2022 was presented by the The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, in the House of Commons. Highlights of the budget include a focus on housing, limiting greenhouse gases, and investment in low-carbon industries and the critical minerals sector.
Meanwhile in Manitoba, the 2022 provincial budget is set to be delivered on Tuesday, April 12, 2022.
Save the date! – On October 27, 2022, the Court of Appeal of Manitoba will be hosting a Gala dinner at the RBC Convention Centre to honour the retirement of the Hon. Justice Richard Chartier, Chief Justice of Manitoba. This is sure to be an exceptional evening with special guest speaker, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada. Details to come. Click here to see the announcement.
Court Notices & Practice Directions
Court of Queen’s Bench
New Library Resources
New from Emond’s Criminal Law Series
Qualifying and Challenging Expert Evidence, Eric V. Gottardi, Jennifer A. MacLellan, Michael Lacy, Robin Flumerfelt
Qualifying and Challenging Expert Evidence is an essential guide for legal practitioners and expert witnesses participating in a criminal trial. Applicable to Crown, defence counsel, and the judiciary, this handbook uses clear and concise language to address all aspects of expert witness testimony from start to finish.
Authored by a respected team of cross-national legal experts, Qualifying and Challenging Expert Evidence integrates varied perspectives to achieve a balanced, engaging, and comprehensive approach unmatched by any other resource. It maintains a practical focus while weaving strategic guidance with an analysis of case law and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. Ranging from psychiatry to forensics and from pathology to technology, this resource will prepare legal practitioners for the procedural, tactical, and strategic elements of qualifying and challenging expert witnesses in criminal cases.
New Print Titles Coming Soon
Developed in response to the pandemic, this handy resource acts as a one-stop reference for employment lawyers, litigators, in-house counsel and other human resources professionals who are charged with dealing with the employment law issues that have arisen during and as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Author O’Donnell, an experienced employment lawyer, is particularly well-positioned to offer general guidelines and best practices for addressing those issues, as well as to provide insight into the relevant legislation and case law related to COVID-19. Featuring case studies based on the COVID-19 outbreak, this text includes answers to the most pressing employment- and pandemic-related questions that lawyers and other professionals are grappling with at this time.
New Family Law resources have recently been released by the Justice Department as part of their free online legal training resources for professionals, Justice Canada Changes to Family Laws. Along with a family violence toolkit, three new free and accredited courses are available to help lawyers understand the 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act.
New articles from the following journals are now available for Law Society members upon request:
- Estates Trusts & Pensions Journal
- Canadian Criminal Law Review
- Criminal Law Quarterly
- Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice
- Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence
- Education and Law Journal
- Indigenous Law Journal
- University of Toronto Law Journal
- Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice
Review taken from the Canadian Law Library Review, Vol. 46 Issue 4
Artificial Intelligence and the Law in Canada. Edited by Florian Martin-Bariteau and Teresa Scassa. Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2021. xxvii, 422 p. Includes contributor biographies, foreword, table of contents, table of cases, and index. ISBN 978-0-433-51467-1 (hardback) $195.00.
“[..] Artificial Intelligence and the Law in Canada highlights all the ways in which AI has had and will continue to have an impact on significant aspects of Canadian society. It explains how the law has responded to or might respond to issues raised by AI’s current or potential applications within the current legal framework. Where appropriate, it considers how the law could or should be reconceptualized to respond to these issues.[…] If readers were uncertain before, this book makes it abundantly clear that AI is here, and it is here to stay. In this context, Artificial Intelligence and the Law in Canada is an essential read for practicing lawyers across all areas of law, judges, policymakers, and of course legal academics, and is a must-purchase for all types of law libraries.” – reviewed by Katerina Daniels
The New Limitations Act
Apr 28 2022
1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Significant changes to the limitation periods for civil causes of action will come into effect on September 30, 2022, bringing Manitoba’s regime into alignment with many other provinces. The new Limitations Act eliminates the various limitation periods for different causes of action under our current legislation and replaces them with a two-year ”basic” limitation period. It also shortens the “ultimate” limitation period to 15 years, with the exception of certain Aboriginal claims.
In addition to understanding the law, you will also need to think carefully about your system for diarizing matters and how you will communicate with clients about their claims.
This ½ day program will give you an overview of the new Limitations Act, covering key topics such as:
- What does the new statute make simpler or more complicated?
- Transition period
- Discoverability – basic limitation period runs from the date the claim is discovered
- Practice management considerations
Bill Gange, Gange Collins
Tana Christianson, Professional Liability Claims Fund
Kelly Dixon, Green & Dixon
Sacha Paul, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50: Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) finding that the respondent had “voluntarily reavailed herself of the diplomatic protection of Columbia” because she had used a Columbian passport to travel to Columbia and sought private protection. As a result, she lost her claim for protection. Federal court found RPD decision unreasonable. Reasonableness analysis conducted from paras 58-79. FCA agreed and offers RPD extensive guidance (para 80).
Thorkelson v.The College of Pharmacists of Manitoba et al., 2022 MBQB 29: Appeal of decision by College of Pharmacists to cancel appellant’s license. Appellant pled guilty to the felony of misprision in the U.S. Parties do not agree on the standard of review. Appellant argues this appeal is a new matter; respondents say it is appellate review, relying on Vavilov. Suche, J. provides an overview of the licence cancellation procedure of The Pharmaceutical Act. Analysis of whether “misprision of a felony” is an offence. Court concludes that cancellation of the appellant’s licences is not an appropriate penalty.
Paul Daly, Jennifer Raso and Joe Tomlinson. Administrative Law in the Digital World, 2022 CanLIIDocs 559.
…Given the vast scope, both current and potential, of the interfaces between administrative law and the digital world, our aim in this chapter cannot be to provide a comprehensive survey of the questions that occupy this growing part of the field, or those questions that may occupy it in the coming years. Instead, our aim is more modest but still, we hope, useful at this juncture: to provide a provocation for administrative law scholars regarding the necessity of engaging with developments concerning digital technology…
Terry Davidson. Follow-up Needed if Changes Come to Manitoba’s Social Services Appeal Process: Expert. The Lawyer’s Daily, 15 March 2022. Comment on amendments introduced to The Social Services Appeal Board Act.
Anderson v. Alberta, 2022 SCC 6: Advance costs and the requirement of impecuniosity. Cost of litigation is estimated at $5 million. Appeal allowed; Karakatsanis and Brown JJ. (Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. concurring)
 We conclude that a First Nation government that has access to resources may meet the impecuniosity requirement if it demonstrates that it requires such resources to meet its pressing needs. While the impecuniosity requirement is guided by the condition of necessity, pressing needs are not defined by the bare necessities of life. Rather, and in keeping with the imperative of reconciliation, they ought to be understood from the perspective of that First Nation government. …
 In our respectful view, the case management judge erred in her impecuniosity analysis. While her finding that Beaver Lake is an impoverished community with pressing needs is unassailable, her findings were insufficient to conclude that Beaver Lake had satisfied the legal test for impecuniosity.
 The matter of Beaver Lake’s impecuniosity, however, should be reconsidered in light of the reasons that follow, and to account for the passage of time which will likely have altered Beaver Lake’s current financial state. We would therefore allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
Forsythe et al v. Labossiere et al, 2022 MBCA 28: Plaintiffs appeal an order directing the district registrar to cancel and discharge a caveat filed by the plaintiffs. Issue of whether the motion judge had jurisdiction to discharge the caveat and whether it was appropriate to dismiss the plaintiffs’ motion for a PLO. Judicial consideration of test from Bojkovic v. Rentz Bros Inc et al, 2010 MBCA 17. Discussion of caveat discharge under s.163 of The Real Property Act. Plaintiffs’ appeal granted.
Singh v. Brar, 2022 MBQB 60: Application for a declaration that a taxi vehicle licence belongs to the applicant. Respondent argues that he has a 50 percent beneficial ownership interest in the licence. Onus is on applicant to demonstrate that the respondent does not have an interest. Perlmutter, A.C.J.Q.B. found that she was not able to do that and therefore the parties are in a partnership and the respondent has a 50 percent beneficial ownership interest. Partnership is to be dissolved and licence to be sold. Remaining issue is determining the date of the dissolution of the partnership. Reference to a master to take accounts and determine the distribution of assets.
Kalo v. Microsoft Corporation, 2022 MBQB 56: Small claims action: dispute over loss of files from a Hotmail account which was deactivated by the defendant. Claimant lost access to the account and followed some procedures to regain access but did not complete them. After 60 days of no activity, defendant deactivated the account and all files and documents were deleted. Claimant is asking for damages of $15,000. Toews, J. found that the defendant provided claimant with an opportunity to retrieve his data and dismissed the claim.
Winnipeg (City) v. Caspian Projects Inc. et al., 2022 MBQB 53: Cross motions for summary judgment re City’s claims over cost overruns and other financial issues regarding the bidding and tendering of the contract to replace the WPS headquarters. Joyal, C.J.Q.B. finds that summary judgment is an appropriate forum and over 129 pages, decides that the City’s allegations have been proven and the defendants’ cross-motion ought to be dismissed. Discussion of admissible evidence to be considered by the court (para 108). Damages award determined starting at para 265.
Niata Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Snowcat Property Holdings Limited, 2022 MBQB 50: Application for a declaration of entitlement to an easement over the respondent’s property, and an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the easement. Applicants claim under proprietary estoppel and prescriptive easement. Discussion of the applicable law governing the establishment of a prescriptive easement. Application dismissed.
White Oak Commercial Finance, LLC v. Nygård Holdings, 2022 MBQB 48: Application by Receiver seeking several orders, and a separate motion seeking advice and direction regarding the additional use of the Preserved Proceeds. Discussion of a “substantive consolidation” and whether it should be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. Analysis of the proper allocation of revenues generated from the sale of assets towards costs for professional fees. Consideration of the application of the law of subrogation. Summary of Orders/Declaratory relief found at para. 161.
Muzik v. Worthington et al., 2022 MBQB 44: Reasons on costs for decision reported at 2021 MBQB 263 where plaintiff was awarded damages of $1.6 million for defamation. No award of solicitor and client costs; party and party costs at a Class 4 level with some double costs due to refusal of a settlement offer; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest included. Summary noted at para. 45.
Papasotiriou-Lanteigne v. Tsitsos, 2022 MBQB 41: Appeal from a Master’s decision dismissing the action for long delay. Issue is over whether the plaintiff was under a disability, as QB Rule 24.02(3) states that any period of time a person is under a disability is not included when calculating the three years under Rule 24.02(1). Plaintiff argued that his conviction for murder and imprisonment counted as a disability. Discussion of the law on dismissal for an action for delay. Appeal dismissed.
Roque v. Peters, 2022 MBQB 34: Suit over providing intimate images to a third party without consent. Two statutory torts involved, under The Intimate Image Protection Act and The Privacy Act. Zinchuk, J. stated “It is the ability to control who sees images of one’s body which is ultimately central to this litigation” (para.33). Consideration of whether motives of defendant play a role when considering defence of public interest. Plaintiff is successful; general and aggravated damages awarded.
Manitoba Federation of Labour et al v. The Government of Manitoba, 2022 MBQB 32: Award of damages for breach of Charter rights in negotiation between the University of Manitoba and the University of Manitoba Faculty Association. UMFA is claiming damages on behalf of individual members and on behalf of the union itself. Discussion of the loss of trust in the union/membership relationship, as well as employee/employer relationship due to government interference. McKelvey, J. used the steps developed in Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27 to assess damages. Damages of just over $19 million are awarded.
Clovis Kemmerich. The Interpretation of Court Opinions. (2022) 35 Can. J.L. & Juris. 169 (WLNC – request a copy).
What kind of argument is acceptable for this or that interpretation when the text is a court’s opinion? There is plenty of discussion about literary, constitutional, and statutory interpretation. Is it acceptable to import their tenets or theories to the interpretation of court opinions? This paper goes over the leading views on literary, constitutional, and statutory interpretation to compare them with the needs of the court opinions’ interpretation. The author argues that one must interpret court opinions according to the pragmatic model and endeavor to understand the meaning the judge intended for the text.
Terry Davidson. Manitoba Intimate Images Lawsuit Could Pave Way for Other Complainants: Lawyer. The Lawyer’s Daily, 14 March 2022. Comment on Roque v. Peters, 2022 MBQB 34, the first ruling on The Intimate Images Act.
R. v. Vallières, 2022 SCC 10: Issue of amount of fine in lieu of an order for forfeiture of property that is proceeds of crime. Respondent was convicted of fraud, trafficking and theft of maple syrup. Trial judge had imposed a fine in lieu of an order for forfeiture equal to the value of the property ($10 million). Court of Appeal reduced it to $1 million, the value of the property that was proceeds of crime. Appeal allowed. Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.
 This appeal gives the Court an opportunity to clarify the scope of judicial discretion when determining the amount of a fine to impose on an offender under s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 (“Cr. C.”), in lieu of an order for forfeiture of property that is proceeds of crime (“fine in lieu”). In particular, this Court must determine whether a court has the discretion to limit the amount of a fine in lieu to the profit made by an offender from their criminal activities and must delineate the circumstances in which a court may apportion between co‑accused the value of property that is proceeds of crime. This appeal serves, incidentally, as an occasion for this Court to reaffirm that a fine in lieu is ordered as a substitute for forfeiture and not as a punishment for the commission of an offence, although the fine is part of the sentencing process.
R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9: Issue of the scope of trial management power. Accused appealed his conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred by making rulings curtailing particular lines of questioning. From the headnotes:
Per Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.: Three of the impugned rulings were free from error. The fourth ruling was erroneous in part; however, the curative proviso applies, as it occasioned no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Per Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. (dissenting): The appeal should be allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered. The trial judge’s exclusion of the security guard’s prior inconsistent statement made at the preliminary inquiry about who dropped and picked up the gun was an erroneous evidentiary ruling, not a trial management decision. This error cannot be saved by the curative proviso.
R. v. White, 2022 SCC 7: Oral decision: Appeal as of right based on dissent in NLCA. Respondent claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and sought a new trial. He claimed he had not been advised of his right to choose a trial in Provincial Court, Supreme Court with a judge alone, or Supreme Court with a judge and jury. He was convicted in Provincial Court. Dissent in CA did not agree that ineffective assistance of counsel was made out. Appeal allowed and matter remanded to CA to address respondent’s remaining grounds of appeal.
R. v. Brunelle, 2022 SCC 5: Oral decision: Crown appealed as of right, arguing that majority overstepped in its appellate role by reassessing the evidence. Accused claimed he acted in self-defence; trial judge rejected the theory.
When a verdict is reached by a judge sitting alone, there are two bases on which a court of appeal may be justified in intervening because the verdict is unreasonable: (1) where the verdict cannot be supported by the evidence; or (2) where the verdict is vitiated by illogical or irrational reasoning (R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5,  1 S.C.R. 190; R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40,  3 S.C.R. 3).
R. v. Hjorleifson, 2022 MBCA 27: Motion by accused for an order pursuant to r. 46.2 of the Court of Appeal rules for the rehearing of his appeal. Test set out in Rémillard v. Rémillard, 2015 MBCA 42. Motion dismissed.
R. v. Tamana, 2022 MBCA 26: Accused appeals his convictions for kidnapping, aggravated assault, robbery with a firearm and other offences, and seeks leave to appeal his sentence. Accused has burden of establishing his claim of uneven scrutiny of the evidence. Appeal dismissed and leave to appeal the sentence denied.
R. v. J.M., 2022 MBCA 25: Accused appeals conviction for offences of sexual assault and sexual interference. He also seeks leave to appeal and if granted, appeal his sentence. Accused argues trial judge erred by admitting the victim’s video statement and that the verdicts were unreasonable. Examination of s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and its application in this case. Conviction appeal dismissed and leave to appeal sentence denied.
R. v. Gromnisky, 2022 MBQB 58: Accused was convicted of impaired driving and sentenced to a minimum $1,000 fine and a minimum one year driving prohibition, leading to a suspension to his driver’s licence. He appealed and filed an application to have the order stayed which was granted. There being no written decisions in Manitoba, Martin, J. provides these reasons. He notes the different legislative and procedural requirements under the Criminal Code and The Highway Traffic Act. Test for a stay is noted in para 11.
R. v. A.S., 2022 MBPC 12: Sentencing decision where accused pleaded guilty to 17 child sexual abuse offences involving nine children, which took place over two and a half decades. Children were all known to him. Crown seeking a sentence of 30 years; defence 21 ¼ years. Relevant sentencing principles in this case are denouncing the offender’s conduct, deterrence, separating him from society, and to acknowledge the harm done to the victims. Much discussion of R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9. Sentence for each offence should be consecutive, but the reasonable sentences add up to 105 ½ years. Sentence of 30 years reduced by pre-trial custody.
R. v. Sumner, 2022 MBPC 3: Sentencing decision where accused pleaded guilty to a residential break and enter, commit assault and an aggravated assault committed 18 days later. Matter heard in FASD Court. Both events were extremely violent. Video evidence provided for both. Devine, P.J. notes the lack of appropriate resources available to house the accused. Examination of the accused’s moral culpability given he is indigenous, suffers from FASD and other psychological diagnoses. Sentence for break and enter is 18 months, sentence on aggravated assault is four years, giving a total of five and a half years. Overall sentence reduced to four years, reduced by the time spent in custody.
R. v. Day, 2022 MBPC 2: Voir dire over issue of constitutional validity of mandatory alcohol screening (MAS) under s. 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code on charge of impaired driving. Accused bears burden of proving on balance of probabilities that the section violates the Charter. Significant narration of the expert opinion evidence given. Discussion of the effectiveness of MAS on deterring drinking and driving. Motion dismissed.
Nathan Baker. Cases Address Question of Time on Suspension Pre-DUI Pleas. The Lawyer’s Daily, 17 March 2022. SCC Leave to Appeal granted in Basque v. R., 2021 NBCA 50.
Cristin Schmitz. SCC Sheds Light on When Judicial Curtailment of Defence’s Cross-Examination Threatens Fair Trial. The Lawyer’s Daily, 25 March 2022. Summary of R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9.
Singh v. Kaur, 2022 MBQB 46: Father’s application for the return of his son from Italy under the Hague Convention. Mother opposes and requests a stay or adjournment pending determination of her claim for refugee protection. Analysis of whether the evidence presented in court fulfills the meaning of Article 13(b) of the Convention (grave risk or harm) as an exception to the mandatory return provisions. Court must determine whether removal of the child was wrongful. Analysis of whether a “Voice of the Child” report should be ordered, considering the child is eight years old. Stay denied, report not ordered, and request for return of child granted.
A.J.K. v. J.P.B., 2022 MBQB 43: Issues of family violence, hearings without notice, sealing orders and initializing. Pattern of family violence has established that the father poses a significant risk to the mother, the children and the community. Mother has sole custody of the children. Mother sought a protection order for herself and then later for herself and the children. In current motion, mother is seeking an order that she not be required to provide notice to the father of a change of residence or relocation for the children. Case considers new provisions in the Divorce Act which mandates new duties for judges to consider family violence and how it impacts the best interest of the children. Discussion of when it is appropriate to initialize a decision. Court pocket is sealed to the father and the public until 30 days from the date of signing this judgment. Mother’s motion is allowed.
Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services) v. A.K.M.P. and S.L.H., 2022 MBQB 38: Application by Agency for permanent order of guardianship. Respondents (parents) argue that a supervision order is appropriate. Agency bears burden of proof to establish that child was in need of protection at time of apprehension and trial. Child has already exceeded the maximum amount of time allowed under a temporary order. Both parents have made significant progress over the past two years. Thatcher, J. finds the child is currently in need of protection and grants a permanent order. There is a guardianship application brought by a grandmother. Child will not be adopted as long as that application is active.
T.L.T. v. D.A.F. and CFS Western MB v. T.L.E. and D.A.F., 2022 MBQB 28: Custody order for child who has been going back and forth between the mother and the father since 2014. Interim Order pronounced gave parents joint custody, with mother having primary care and control and father having specified periods of care. Issues for determination: What order is in the best interest of the child and pursuant to what legislation; ongoing amount of child support; are there any arrears of child support owing by the father. Menzies, J. had determined previously that the child was in need of protection. Abel, J. concludes that the parties should have joint custody, with the father having primary care and control, and determines level of child support and arrears payable.
Nicholas Bala and Yakin Ebsim. The 2021 Canadian Parenting Reforms: Is Shared Parenting the New Normal? Queen’s Law Research Paper Series. 2022 CanLIIDocs 557.
In March 2021 the first significant changes to the parenting provisions of Canada’s Divorce Act (DA) since its enactment in 1985 came into effect. While the legislative reforms were substantial, in many respects they reinforced judicial trends that were apparent in the caselaw under the previous legislation. Under the reforms, courts have continued to emphasize the need for individualized decision-making and the absence of legislative presumptions about parenting time or decision-making.
Alison Braley-Rattai. The Best Interest of the Child and the Limits of Parental Autonomy to Refuse Vaccination. McGill Journal of Law and Health, 2021 CanLIIDocs 13616.
In this article, the author defends the proposition that given the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the safety and utility of childhood vaccination, consideration of the child’s best interest undermines the case for parental vaccine refusal, quite apart from the public health dimension of the issue, which she discusses only peripherally.
Labour and Employment Law
University of Manitoba v. University of Manitoba Faculty Association, 2022 CanLII 22900 (MB LA): Labour arbitration decision by William Kaplan. Three issues referred to interest arbitration: general salary increase, recruitment and retention adjustments, return to work disputes. Parties goal is to advance to the 25th percentile in the U15 Group of Canadian Research University Salary Standings. UM currently sits near the bottom. Arbitrator uses the mean rather than the median when considering the General Salary increase.
JSL Labour and Employment Law NetLetter. A weekly current awareness service highlighting new labour and employment decisions from labour boards, arbitrators, human rights tribunals and courts. Available through LexisAdvance Quicklaw. Email us to be added to the distribution list.
Wills, Trusts & Estates
Weiss Estate v. Weiss; Weiss v. Weiss Estate, 2022 MBQB 55: Costs decision after granting of application found at 2022 MBQB 13. One set of parties were ruled against on both applications but wanted party and party costs and disbursements paid from the estate. Position of other (successful) parties request costs in an amount approximating tariff costs, doubled from the point where they made an offer to settle. Public Guardian and Trustee is also entitled to costs, determined on a solicitor and client basis.
Bowes v. Estate of Bowes, 2022 MBQB 47: Application for a determination of ownership of monies on deposit in a joint account where the testator died intestate. Applicant submits that legal and beneficial ownership of the account passed to him through right of survivorship. One sibling argues that the account is held in trust on the presumption of resulting trust. Leading decision on this issue is Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17. Applicant has duty to prove transferor’s intention to make a gift. Bock, J. found applicant was successful and the balance in the account will not be included in the testator’s estate.
Tecter v. Reimer Estate, 2022 MBQB 45: Counsel for respondent requested submission respecting costs. Kroft, J. had ordered party and party costs for decision in 2021 MBQB 133. Parties submitted brief written reasons. Kroft, J. concluded party and party costs should be varied but solicitor and client costs were too high. Order for applicants to pay the respondent elevated costs.
Ian Burns. Beneficiaries not liable for debts of a trust or trustee, Alberta Appeal Court rules. The Lawyer’s Daily, 1 April 2022. Case comment on Chevron Canada Resources v. Canada, 2022 ABCA 108.
Aubrie Girou and Catherine Bunio. B.C. Bill-21 and Electronic Wills: Progressive or Problematic? (2022) 41 Est. Tr. & Pensions J. 152 (Request a copy). A list of all articles from the latest edition of Estates, Trusts and Pensions Journal is available here.
House of Commons
44th Parliament, 1st Session
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech)
Progress: First reading completed in the House of Commons
44th Parliament, 1st Session
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Progress: At second reading in the House of Commons
44th Parliament, 1st Session
An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts
Progress: First reading completed in the Senate
44th Parliament, 1st Session
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures)
Progress: At second reading in the Senate
Royal Assent Received
44th Parliament, 1st Session
An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement)
|223||Mr. Smook||The Ukrainian Heritage Month Act|
|226||MLA Asagwara||The Public Schools Amendment Act (Provision of Menstrual Hygiene Products)|
|227||Mr. Brar||The Turban Day Act|
|Chapter||Title (provisions)||Date in force||Date signed||Proclamation|
|SM 2021, c. 15||The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Health System Governance and Accountability)|
Part 1, except section 74 insofar as it enacts sections 79.2 and 79.3
sections 77 to 82 and 84 to 90
subsections 91(2) to (16)
clauses 91(23)(a) and (e)
subsections 91(24) and (25)
sections 93 to 97, 99 to 118, 120 to 126 and section 134 except clauses (a) and (b)
|1 April 2022||Mar 23 2022||Proclamation|
|SM 2021, c. 6||The Legal Profession Amendment Act|
whole Act except section 3 and section 6 insofar as it enacts section 25.2
|1 April 2022||Mar 23 2022|
|SM 2021, c. 61||The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2021|
|Mar 31 2022||Mar 23 2022||Proclamation|
|SM 2021, c. 64||The Workers Compensation Amendment Act|
|1 April 2022||Mar 23 2022||Proclamation|
|SM 2021, c. 7||The Horse Racing Regulatory Modernization Act (Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Act and Pari-Mutuel Levy Act Amended)|
|1 April 2022||Mar 23 2022||Proclamation|