Take a look at some of the texts the library has to offer to help with any legal nightmares
· Legal responsibilities of real estate agents — 3rd ed. By Rosemary Bocska and Martin K.I. Rumack
· Caveat emptor and the pros and cons of greater sellers’ disclosure CPD
· 2019 hot topics in real estate (Stigmatized property) CPD
· The law of libel in Canada — 4th ed. Peter A. Downard
· Brown on Defamation
Also be sure to check out this article on HeinOnline about a case where a house was legally declared haunted.
Keep reading for some tips on finding related resources for titles like; AIDS, Ghosts, Murder: Must Real Estate Brokers and Sellers Disclose, or Caveat Spiritus: A Jurisdictional Reflection upon the Law of Haunted Houses and Ghosts
This decision by Lanchbery, J. concerns the right of Manitoba Public Insurance to cancel a personalized licence plate (PLP) after allowing the respondent to display it for almost two years. The slogan on the licence plate was based on characters from Star Trek.
 The question before me, is the limit of s. 2(b) rights on PLPs for the purpose to “eliminate the inappropriate/possibly offensive slogans”, reasonable. Troller v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, 2019 MBQB 157
The parties agreed that the decision to revoke the PLP is a discretionary administrative act of the Registrar (para. 81). Lanchbery, J. found that Charter protections are engaged, but further analysis showed that the actions of MPIC were reasonable.
One interesting fact that came out of this was that MPIC uses the Urban Dictionary as one of its sources to determine whether a potential PLP is offensive.
This week’s decision concerns an application for an oppression remedy: Caughlin v. Canadian Payroll Systems Inc., 2019 MBQB 6.
Caughlin … alleges that the conduct of Lyle and CPS has been oppressive and unfairly prejudicial and that there has been an unfair disregard for his interests. Caughlin seeks a remedy to address the inequitable conduct and activities of Lyle and CPS.
As noted by Harris, J., s. 234(2) of The Corporations Act, C.C.S.M. c. C225 explains the grounds for seeking an oppression remedy, and the leading case is BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69.
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.