by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 24, 2019 | Caselaw, Criminal Law, Decision of the Week, Impaired Driving, Sentencing
This week’s decision is the first reported provincial court decision for 2019: R. v. Osnach, 2019 MBPC 1.
[1] … The main issue to be addressed is whether the mandatory minimum one-year driving prohibition imposed under s. 259(1) of the Criminal Code may be reduced on account of time spent under a three-month provincial administrative suspension.
The issue of whether the three month administrative suspension could be included in the one year driving prohibition was likened to credit for time in custody. Choy, P.J. did not agree.
[17] I also do not accept the defence submission that the situation is analogous to credit for time in custody. In that regard, the case R. v. Wust, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455 was relied upon by defence. I find that the leap from pre-sentence custody credit to credit for provincially mandated driving suspension cannot be made. Depriving a person of their liberty is not the same as a person being inconvenienced by the inability to operate a motor vehicle. Liberty is a fundamental individual right, whereas driving is a privilege which is earned.
by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 23, 2019 | Family Law, Law Society Publications
January 2019, Issue No. 91 highlights:
- Cultural Heritage of Children Not Underemphasized: MBCA (Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services v KRF et al, 2018 MBCA 104)
- Proportionality Concerns Underlie Decision to Proceed: MBCA (Sawatzky v Sawatzky, 2018 MBCA 102)
- No Entitlement to Accounting by a Master: MBCA (Ball v Sizeland et al, 2018 MBCA 85)
- Legislative Update
- Proposed Regulatory Amendments
- Amendments to the Court of Queen’s Bench Rules
- Notices and Practice Directions
- Recommended Reading
- Winter CPD: LSM
- Annual Joint Family Law Program: The Times They are a Changin’
The full edition of this issue is available here.
by Karen Sawatzky | Jan 18, 2019 | Civil Litigation, Court of Queen's Bench, Practice Directions
Effective immediately, the Civil Motion Coordinator (Cheryl Laniuk) is to be contacted (phone number – 204-945-3043) regarding the scheduling of all civil motions, including those returnable on the civil uncontested list, contested motions and seized motions.
Coming into effect
This Practice Direction comes into effect immediately.
Original notice available here.
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.
Great LEXpectations RSS Feed