Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for February 11, 2019.
Decisions covering the following topics:
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.
Costs awarded personally against counsel are a rare occasion. At 41 pages, R. v. Gowenlock, 2019 MBCA 5 is a detailed analysis of when it is appropriate to do so, and the amount that should be awarded. This was a decision of first impression and had the benefit of two intervenors, the Attorney General for Manitoba and the Criminal Defence Lawyers Association of Manitoba, as well as amicus curiae.
This appeal offers this Court the opportunity to provide certainty, clarity and guidance for the development and application of principles and procedures in regard to the costs-awarding rules. It is worth re-emphasising that the discretion to exercise the power to award costs against counsel personally must be exercised with restraint and that this is especially so in the criminal context. Courts must ensure that any costs award against defence counsel does not in any way affect the accused’s right to make full answer and defence. Courts must also be aware that unjustified non-compliance with valid court-ordered timelines causes delays and that these delays prejudice the accused and undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Para. 88
Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for January 28, 2019.
Decisions covering the following topics:
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.
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.
Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for January 21, 2019.
Decisions covering the following topics:
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.
Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for January 14, 2019.
Decisions covering the following topics:
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.
Great LEXpectations RSS Feed