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 George Roy | Jan 21, 2019 | Caselaw, Legal Research, U.K.
Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for January 21, 2019.
Decisions covering the following topics:
- Civil Litigation
- Commercial
- Costs
- Crime
- Employment
- European Union
- Family
- Public Law
- Tax
- Tort
- Trusts and Chancery
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 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