News

• Manitoba Government Proclaims Abortion Buffer Zone Legislation January 31, 2025 “The legislation requires safety perimeters around clinics whose primary purpose is to provide abortion services. Other facilities that provide surgical or medical abortion services such as hospitals, pharmacies, doctors’ offices and health-care facilities have the option of requesting a buffer zone be established around their sites.”
• Manitoba Government Tackling Hate Crimes Against Manitobans January 15, 2025 – “The province currently has a hate crime working group within the Manitoba Prosecution Service, which provides expertise and guidance in hate crime prosecutions. The Manitoba Prosecution Service will designate a lead Crown attorney to co-ordinate the work of this group. New terms of reference for the working group are currently being drafted, the minister added.”
• The Justice and Human Rights Committee Presents Its Unanimous Report Entitled Reforming Canada’s Extradition System June 7, 2023 – “Among other things, the committee recommends to review all extradition treaties to which Canada is a party, to integrate protections when there is a potential risk of torture following extradition, to add new requirements during the judicial phase of the extradition process, to update the Extradition Act’s language to take into account gender identity and gender expression, and to enshrine an obligation to publish data, statistics and governmental internal policies, as well as a reporting obligation. A copy of the report may be obtained from the committee’s website.”

• Canadian Legal Ethics: 2024 Unwrapped – “What happened in Canadian lawyers’ ethics and legal services regulation in 2024? This column looks back on three high-profile areas of development. It also flags several major court cases and disciplinary proceedings from 2024, as well as cases to watch for the year ahead. “

Featured News

Question of the Month

This feature presents some of the interesting queries we receive, and highlights how we can direct you towards the appropriate resources.

If can’t come down to library in person, how can I get access to resources that are only in print?

While a lot of information if available online, not everything is, and  there are still advantages to having print, including the ability to provide copies while avoiding copyright infringement. The library is able to email requests for scans of our print material due to the fair dealing exemption in the Copyright act.

February 24–28, 2025  is Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week. As mentioned on fairuseweek.org “Fair use is an important right that provides balance to the copyright system and supports the constitutional purpose of copyright to “promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.”

Under the Copyright Act section 29 allows for  “Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright.” While section 30.2 allows for libraries “to do anything on behalf of any person that the person may do personally under section 29 or 29.1.”

The exact guidelines for what fair dealing entails is not very specific but has been discussed by the Supreme Court. In CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, a Law Society library provided custom photocopy service and maintained self-service photocopiers in library for use by patrons. They were sued by a group of publishers for providing these services to researchers. The supreme court held that the library’s use fell within fair dealing. Six factors were listed in determining fairness in copying: The purpose, character, amount, alternative, nature and effect of the dealing. Many libraries now follow a similar guideline for copying protected works such as this one from the Canadian Library Association.

New challenges to copyright are emerging with the popularity of AI. Most recently, the open access legal publisher CanLII is suing an AI company for using their database to build its large language model. It’s certainly not the only case of AI companies infringing on copyright. This page from WIRED is tracking dozens of American cases involved in such allegations.

For more information on Copyright and Intellectual property, take a look the following resources:

Open Access books

• Copyright Inside the Law Library (The Advocate vol. 53 pt. 3, 1995)
• The Copyright Pentalogy: How The Supreme Court Supreme Court Of Canada Of Canada Shook The Shook The Foundations Of Foundations Of Canadian Copyright Law (2013)

 Library Resources on vLex

• Copyright law by David Vaver
• Digital Copyright Law by Cameron Hutchison
• Intellectual Property for the 21st Century: Interdisciplinary Approaches  Editors: B. Courtney Doagoo; Mistrale Goudreau; Teresa Scassa; Madelaine Saginur
• Intellectual Property Law — 2nd ed
• From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”

 Print Titles

• Hughes on copyright and industrial design — 2nd ed.
• Canadian law of copyright and industrial designs — 3rd ed.
• Canadian Copyright Act annotated
• Canadian legislation on intellectual property

Latest Current Awareness

Journals

Manitoba Law Library subscribes to a number of legal journals in print and digital. See below for the latest issues of popular titles. Members can request copies of articles under fair dealing guidelines by emailing library@lawsociety.mb.ca

Court Notices & Practice Directions

Provincial Court

Notices

• • • • January, 17, 2025 – Booking Disposition Time

New Library Resources

New Online Journals

Book Reviews

Review taken from the Canadian Law Library Review, Vol. 49 Issue 3

What Roe v Wade Should Have Said: The Nation’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Most Controversial Decision.

Edited by Jack M Balkin. Revised edition. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2023. xiv, 344 p. (hardcover) US$89.00; (softcover) US$23.95; eBook) US$23.95.

Reviewed By
Lorissa Kinna
Reference Librarian
Great Library, Law Society of Ontario

“This revised edition of What Roe v Wade Should Have Said could not have come at a more pertinent time. At the time of publishing in 2023, 50 years had passed since the original 1973 United States Supreme Court decision. This edition also came out shortly after the 2022 decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v Wade.

…

What Roe v Wade Should Have Said is a valuable text for those who want to learn more about the abortion debate in the United States. It not only covers the original Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions and the underlying Texas and Georgia statutes, it highlights the problematic portions of the decisions that gave rise to the polarization that the United States experiences today”

Click here for the full review

Events

Featured Event

Louis Riel Day event hosted by the Manitoba Indigenous Law Students’ Association February 13, 2025 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM (CT)

Upcoming Events

Substantive Law

Civil Litigation

Grant v Manitoba (AG), 2025 MBCA 7: Defendants seek leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of a KB judge to dismiss defendants motion to strike plaintiff’s amended statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and as being an abuse of process. Test for granting leave to appeal for interlocutory decisions was discussed in Knight v Daraden Investments Ltd, 2022 MBCA 69. The court reviewed tests applied on a motion to strike (Grant v Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, 2015 MBCA 44) and malicious prosecution (Miazga v Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51). Motion for leave to appeal granted.

Barnabe v. Robert, 2025 MBKB 10: Dispute over difference in historical property line and a subsequent property line survey. Pursuant to s. 27 and s. 28 of The Law of Property Act,  it was determined  the property should be vested to, or an easement granted to, applicant who had structures built on the disputed property, given that they added no value or use to the encroached upon party. Respondent was granted compensation in kind.

Private Trading Group, LLC v. The Government of Manitoba et al., 2025 MBKB 4: Defendant sought order to require plaintiff, ordinarily resident outside of Manitoba, to post security for costs. Plaintiff resists motion on basis that the goods subject to litigations are under the possession and control of the defendants, and should serve as security for costs. Plaintiff failed to establish the value of the goods. Defendant’s motion granted.

Eert v. Petkau et al., 2025 MBKB 2: Defendants move for an order granting leave to file a third party claim against Green Party of Canada (“GPC”), Federal Council of the GPC (“Federal Council”), and GPC Fund (the “Fund”). Proposed third parties are opposed. Plaintiff takes no position. Defendants claim contribution and indemnity pursuant to The Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act (TCN Act) and claim for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation based on the proposed third parties’ failure to honour an indemnity provision in a Bylaw of the GPC constitution. The court used the two-part test in Vale v. Schwartz et al., 2021 MBQB 46 to determine leave should be granted to file the third party claim.

Goerze, Matt. Canada’s AG asks Winnipeg court to dismiss Dakota injunction, Brandon Sun, 22 January 2025.

Corporate and Commercial Law

Prairie Risk Management Inc v Marsh Canada Ltd, 2025 MBCA 6: Defendant appeals judgement awarding damages against it for breach of contract, breach of confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as the award of costs on a solicitor and client basis. Plaintiffs cross appeal the dismissal of their claim the defendant breached its duty of honest contractual performance. It was found the trial judge erred in finding a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. No error found in trial judges finding of breach of confidence, but the damages exceed the loss. Defendants appeal allowed in part, award of damages adjusted. Plaintiffs cross appeal dismissed.

Lefebvre, Charles. Contractors plead guilty to manipulating Manitoba Housing contracts, CTVNews Winnipeg, 6 Febuary 2025.

Criminal Law

R v Guiboche, 2025 MBCA 8: Crown sentence appeal. Accused pled guilty to discharging a restricted firearm with the intent to endanger life. Ground of appeal is the sentencing judge erred in assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court concluded, “We are not convinced that he erred as alleged by the Crown. He weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, applied the legal principles and made a decision regarding the appropriate sentence. While the sentence may be low, in light of the deferential standard of review, we are not satisfied that it is unfit.”

R v Chan, 2025 MBCA 4: Initial incident involved the accused, a restaurant owner, assaulting a public health inspector. Crown appeal of summary conviction appeal judge who set aside conviction of assault peace officer for a conviction for the charge of assault and reduced the length of the sentence. Issue: is a health inspector a peace officer, defined by s.2 of the Criminal Code. In Manitoba, the schedule of definitions in The Interpretation Act, defines peace officer as including “a person appointed under any Act for the enforcement of that Act”. Appeal court allowed the appeal, restored the conviction for assault peace officer, the sentence imposed by the trial judge, and stayed the remaining portion of the conditional discharge and probation order.

R v Oribhabor, 2025 MBCA 1: Accused moved for extension to file a notice of application for leave to appeal sentence pursuant to s. 678(2) of the Criminal Code. Accused was convicted of flight from a peace officer. Notice of motion to extend time was filed almost four months after the deadline to file for leave to appeal. Accused is a foreign national, in Canada on a student visa. While in custody, the CBSA issued a deportation order. Accused did not meet criteria as laid out in R v DBR, 2005 MBCA 21. Motion denied.

R v. Hassen, 2025 MBKB 6: Following conviction of second degree murder, which bordered on first degree murder (similar to R. v. St. Paul, 2021 MBCA 31), Martin, J. sought to determine the appropriate period that the accused should be ineligible for parole. Due to the severity of the offence, the accused was given an ineligibility period of 18 years

R v Andrews, 2025 MBPC 10: Accused charged with impaired operation. An additional previous charge of driving over .08 was stayed after a successful Charter challenge. Discussion of R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. Evidence given by witnesses satisfied the court that the accused was impaired at the time of the accident.

R v. Barron, 2025 MBPC 9: Accused charged with assaulting and choking the complainant. After a night of drinking, accused mistakenly tried to enter the wrong apartment. A physical altercation occurred between the accused, who believed the lawful tenant was an intruder, and the lawful tenant, who used force to defend his home from the attempted unlawful entry. Security footage from the apartment building showed the accused exhibiting signs of intoxication. The court used R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37 to analyze the accused claim of self-defense. Accused was found guilty.

R v WH-L, 2025 MBPC 6: Accused convicted of sexual interference. Allen, PJ considered R v Gratton, 2022 MBPC 56, R v CPR, 2022 MBQB 71, and R v Klyne, 2024 MBPC 26. Accused sentenced to 4 years incarceration and ancillary orders.

R v. PM, 2025 MBPC 5: The accused, a young person, pled guilty to manslaughter. Crown brough an application to have the accused sentenced as an adult per YCJA s. 72. Accused seeks an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Order (IRCS). The Provincial Director determined the accused meets criteria for an IRCS. Crown failed to rebut the presumption against the imposition of an adult sentence. IRCS sentence of 12 months in custody and 24 months of conditional supervision was imposed.

R v Funk, 2025 MBPC 4: Accused convicted of aggravated assault and uttering threats. Accused was found to be a good candidate for rehabilitation due to his young age, Gladue factors, and lack of criminal record. A 2 year, less a day, CSO followed by 1 year supervised probation was given, with the condition that he is to do any and all counselling as recommended by Probation Services; and to have no contact with the victim or his family.

R v. Jakeman, 2025 MBPC 3: Sentencing decision. Accused pled guilty to one count of luring to facilitate making child pornography. Accused contacted the minor victim through Snapchat to solicit nude photos for money. Accused objected to admissibility of a Community Impact Statement filed by the crown, as governed by s. 722.2 of the Criminal Code. R v Van Vu Rosin, 2022 MBPC 10 was mentioned in finding the CIS was admissible. The court agreed with R v Dew, 2024 MBCA 55, that there is no particular sentencing range for this offence. An 18-month custodial sentence followed by 2 years supervised probation was handed down. 

R v Haile, 2025 MBPC 2: Accused charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over .08. Accused alleges his rights under sections 8, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter have been violated as the accused has a limited understanding of the English language. It was shown that the accused attended an English language program, works in English, and his children attend an English-speaking school. No Charter breach was found. Accused convicted of both charges.

R v. Chief, 2025 MBPC 1: Sentencing decision. Accused was found guilty of sexual assault. Aggravating factors include, no prior relationship with the victim, plied the victim with drugs, took steps to obscure his identity, and enlisted a second person to assist him with the assault. Despite the offenders Gladue factors, moral culpability remains high. Bayly, PJ recognized 3 years to be the starting point (R. v. Sandercock 1985 ABCA 218). This recognition was tempered with recent developments in caselaw (R v Bunn, 2022 MBCA 34) and the aggravating factors. A sentence of 7 years incarceration was given.

Family Law

D.V.A. v. S.J.A., 2025 MBKB 8: Decision regarding petitioner’s request that the name of the child be changed pursuant to s. 37(2)(e) of The Family Law Act. When petitioner first made the request under the Change of Name Act he had no parenting time and was unable to meet the qualifiers of the child being under his custody, care and control. Thomson, J. articulates the question at hand as, “whether the court has jurisdiction under The Family Law Act to grant that relief, or whether it is intended that the [Change of Name] Act provides a complete and exhaustive scheme for pursuit of the change of a child’s name,” and distinguishes D.S v. C.S., 2011 MBQB 184 (paras. 8-10). Petition dismissed.

Palamar v. Palamar, 2025 MBKB 7: Appeal of dismissal for delay per Rule 24.01and 24.02(1) of the KB Rules. The court noted that the argument newly raised on appeal, that the petition should have been dismissed when the answer was dismissed, should have been brought as an alternative argument by respondent counsel when the dismissal was first being tried with the Associate Judge. The AJ cannot consider an argument that was not brought. In depth review of case law concerning dismissal for delay and its impact on family law, as well as raising new arguments on appeal. Appeal allowed. Petition as well as answer is dismissed for delay. The court encourages ADR for further matters.

Labour and Employment Law

Hradowy v Magellan Aerospace Limited, 2025 MBCA 9: Plaintiff appeals an order of the motion judge allowing the defendant’s appeal from an order of the senior associate judge and dismissing the defendant’s claim under the long delay rule.  In his statement of claim, plaintiff sought damages arising from the alleged constructive dismissal of his employment with the defendant. Although the motion judge identified the applicable test, WRE Development Ltd v Lafarge Canada Inc, 2022 MBCA 11, it was found he erred in applying the functional test. Appeal allowed, motion judge’s order set aside, and defendant’s motion for dismissal for delay dismissed.

Tax Law

Khan, Anosha. Federal Court rules CRA cannot issue notice of reassessment while rejecting it as proof of income, Law360 Canada, 7 February 2025.

Schofield, John. Federal Court of Appeal discourages Tax Court from sending out draft judgments to parties, Law360 Canada, 17 January 2025.

Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Anderson v. Farina, 2025 MBKB 11: Application to remove an attorney appointed under a Power of Attorney (POA), and an order requiring attorney to pass accounts. Applicant alleges misconduct in handling personal and property matters. A hybrid form of trial proceeded pursuant to Rule 38.09(b) of the KB Rules. Hybrid form of a trial accords with Rule 1.04 and the principles expressed in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7. The test in Robertson v. Harding, 2018 MBCA 67 was used to determine if an accounting was necessary. Order granted directing a reference to the Associate Judge to pass accounts. Respondent remains attorney with restrictions for the interim.

Legislation

Federal

See here for the latest activity.

Provincial

The House adjourned on December 05, 2024.

The 2nd Session of the 43rd Legislature will reconvene on Wednesday, March 05, 2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Current Bills    |    Bill Status

New Regulations