by Karen Sawatzky | Oct 30, 2018 | Caselaw, Criminal Law, Impaired Driving, Summary, Supreme Court of Canada
Keeping to yesterday’s theme on Criminal Law and Impaired Driving resources, the SCC recently released a couple of decisions on driving under the influence.
From Supreme Advocacy Issue #61’s “Supreme One-Liners”:
R. v. Gubbins, 2018 SCC 44 (37395) (37403)
Maintenance records of breathalyzers subject to third party disclosure regime.
R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 (37207)
Certiorari an extraordinary remedy, available only in narrow circumstances.
The full summary from Supreme Advocacy is available here. You can sign up for a free subscription to Supreme Advocacy here.
by Karen Sawatzky | Sep 4, 2018 | Caselaw, Legal Research, Summary, U.K.
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales
Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for September 2, 2018.
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 | Jun 26, 2018 | Caselaw, Commentary, Current Awareness, Digests, Legal Research, Summary
In library jargon, current awareness is the process of keeping clients up to date on new issues in their area of interest. In the legal profession, that function is served by publishers of newsletters, bulletins, and newspapers.
Through our subscriptions, we can provide you with topical commentary in many areas of law. Rather than list them all, I’ll start off with a general one: LawSource Case Notes. This issue’s contents include digests on Civil Practice and Procedure, Construction Law, Contracts, Criminal Law, Evidence, Family Law, Immigration and Citizenship, Insurance, Pensions, Public Law, Real Property, Remedies, and Tax.
If you would like to receive LawSource Case Notes, please email us at library@lawsociety.mb.ca so we can set up a distribution list.
Here’s your first issue for review: LawSource Case Notes 2018-22
by Karen Sawatzky | Feb 21, 2018 | Caselaw, Securities Law, Summary
A recent decision out of British Columbia drew attention to a novel situation: are prepaid cash cards issued by a financial institution deposit accounts?
All Trans Financial Services Credit Union Limited sold prepaid Visa and Mastercards to customers, who could then use the payment cards wherever Visa and Mastercard were accepted. When the Financial Institutions Commission (FIC) investigated, they determined that this was an unauthorized deposit business, contrary to s.81 of the Financial Institutions Act. The FIC ordered All Trans to cease selling these prepaid cards within 30 days of the release of the order. All Trans appealed to the BCSC, where the order was overturned.
This decision is currently under appeal. As noted in commentary by Robert Dawkins and D. Ross McGowan of Borden Ladner Gervais: Prepaid Cards: Deposit Accounts? Or Something Else?
… The decision on appeal may have a significant impact on financial institutions seeking to use creative FinTech approaches to expand their reach and service offerings, as well as FinTech start-ups. Careful consideration to program design is critical to ensure that issuers and program managers structure their card products to meet the regulatory needs for their specific goals.
Other commentary:
Deposit Accounts – Payment Cards (The Lawyers Daily)
by Karen Sawatzky | Feb 15, 2018 | Caselaw, Family Law, Homestead Rights, Summary
[3] … Do joint tenants who are spouses have homestead rights? At what point can a homestead cease being a homestead? Do homestead rights continue after the untimely death of one of the spouses even though the spouses were separated and had engaged in a course of dealing sufficient to make it clear that they intended their property to be divided equally?
These are the issues defined by Dunlop, J. in Siwak v. Siwak, 2018 MBQB 9. The parties were married and had purchased a home in joint tenancy. They were separated and in the middle of dividing their assets when Mrs. Siwak died. A previous decision (2016 MBQB 61) had severed the property into a tenancy in common. Mrs. Siwak’s estate is seeking partition and sale of the property in order to distribute the assets to her beneficiaries. Mr. Siwak claims he has established an estate for life flowing from his initial homestead rights.
[28] Even though Mr. Siwak and Mrs. Siwak lived separate and apart for almost one year and nine months before Mrs. Siwak died and despite the fact that they engaged in a course of dealing sufficient to sever the joint tenancy, it is clear that on a strict reading of the Act, Mr. Siwak had homestead rights at the time of Mrs. Siwak’s passing. One of the primary goals of homestead legislation is to provide a surviving spouse with a life estate in a homestead. Upon the death of Mrs. Siwak, Mr. Siwak realized a life estate in the property.
Great LEXpectations RSS Feed