News

• LSM Members now have access to three Emond e-book collections through vLex. Log in through the Members Portal to access Emond’s Criminal Law Series, Immigration Law Series, and Working with the Law Series.
• LSM:  2024 Articling Survey: Cross-Provincial Comparison “In 2024, the Law Societies of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society surveyed articling students and new lawyers as well as principals, mentors and recruiters. An analysis of the data across the jurisdictions has now been completed to produce a Cross-Provincial Comparison report.”
• SLAW:  Succession — It’s Not How You Start; It’s How You Finish “Succession is a critical yet often ignored component of business strategy that left undone can lead to unfortunate outcomes from client and legal talent departures to law firm failure. Best to act now because it’s not how you start; it’s how you finish.”

Featured Resource

Emond’s Immigration Law Series is now available online in vLex.

“Emond’s new Immigration Law Series offers clear, concise guidance on the practical and procedural aspects of Canadian immigration and refugee law. Ideally suited for lawyers, immigration consultants, and paralegals, this collection covers discrete areas of immigration practice, anchored by the expertise of General Editors Cathryn Sawicki and Chantal Desloges. These titles are authored by legal experts who have years of first-hand experience in the field.”

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

• • • • July 7, 2025 – Further Amended Court Closures due to Wildfires (July 7-11)
      • July 7, 2025 – Amended Court Closures due to Wildfires (July 7-11)
      • July 3, 2025 – Court Closures due to Wildfires (July 7-11)
      • June 26, 2025 – Court Closure due to Wildfires (June 30-July 4)
      • June 20, 2025 – Court Closures due to Wildfires (June 23-27)

New Library Resources

New Digital Titles

Available on vLex

Book Reviews

Review taken from the Canadian Law Library Review, Vol. 50, Issue 1

Wrongfully Convicted: Guilty Pleas, Imagined Crimes, and What Canada Must Do to Safeguard Justice. By Kent Roach. Toronto: Simon & Schuster, 2023. xxxvii, 359 p. Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 9781668023662 (hardcover) $34.99; ISBN 9781668023679 (softcover) $24.99; ISBN 9781668023686 (eBook) $24.99.

Reviewed By

Leslie Taylor
Research and Instruction Librarian Lederman Law Library Queen’s University

“In Wrongfully Convicted, renowned legal scholar and lawyer Kent Roach explains that wrongful convictions are an inevitable product of flaws found in both human nature and the Canadian criminal justice system and that, while it may be easier to make corrections to the latter than the former, we must examine and address both where possible.

 …

Wrongfully Convicted is not the first book on the topic of wrongful convictions in Canada, and many of Roach’s ideas build on those already identified in the existing literature.

It does, however, contribute to the field by thoroughly cataloguing and examining not just well-known wrongful conviction cases but also ones that are hardly known at all, including those of Indigenous persons whose cases have previously gone unexamined.

“

Click here for the full review

Events

Upcoming Events

Substantive Law

Civil Litigation

10008480 Manitoba Ltd v All-Fab Building Components LP, 2025 MBCA 59: Discussion of interpretation and application of the terms of the partnership agreement that relate to the forced sale of limited partnership units where one of the limited partners (applicant) is being forced out of the partnership. Appeal of judgement which found respondent had validly exercised the employee call option in the limited partnership agreement. At appeal hearing, the issue narrowed to whether the use of the power of attorney, once Applicant refused to complete the transaction, was mandatory or optional. Standard of review in an appeal dealing with contractual interpretation found in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53.

5448124 Manitoba Ltd v Cameron Stephens Financial Corporation, 2025 MBCA 58: Plaintiff application for extension of time to file notice of appeal. Plaintiff seeks to appeal a representation decision. The individual seeking to represent the plaintiff is director and shareholder of the plaintiff (a company). The individual is not a lawyer.

Lazy Bear Lodge Ltd v Manitoba, 2025 MBCA 57: Appeal of an MBKB order dismissing appellants motion for urgent interlocutory relief. The relief sought would require the respondents to issue a permit authorizing the operation of two tundra vehicles for the purpose of viewing polar bears in an environmentally protected area in Churchill, Manitoba. Discussion of the doctrine of legitimate expectations (Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC)) and licencing decisions involving ministerial discretion (Canada (Attorney General) v Robinson, 2021 FCA 39).

M.G. v. Child and Family, 2025 MBKB 85: “The result of such poor investigations was that a very vulnerable child was put in the position of having to testify on two different occasions in a court of law. It is not difficult to imagine the long-term damage done to the Child, not only because of the stress of the proceedings, but because of the likely feeling of not being believed when the criminal charges were stayed, or when she learned of the disposition of these proceedings.
     In addition to the potential damage of these proceedings to the Child, the damage done to M. is unfathomable. He lost his job, his reputation, his ability to support himself, his health and most importantly his parental relationship with, and access to, his only child for a significant period of time.
     Incomplete, single-minded and careless investigations that lead to such catastrophic consequences simply cannot happen. All institutions involved including the Provincial Abuse Investigations Unit, the WPS, ANCR and its Child Abuse Committee (“CAC”) must do more than the bare minimum to properly investigate and scrutinize the evidence before proceeding with allegations of child abuse.” (para. 6-8)

Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation v. IL Nido Ltd. et al., 2025 MBKB 89: Respondent illegally operates and advertises online gambling services that are accessible to Manitobans, contrary to s. 202 and 206 of the Criminal Code, s. 52(1) of the Competition Act and s. 7(d) of the Trademarks Act. It was declared the respondent committed the unlawful means tort, as explained in A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 and injunctive relief was granted.

Criminal Law

R v Varennes, 2025 SCC 22:
“Per Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.: The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s appeal of the trial judge’s decision to hold a judge‑alone trial. However, the Court of Appeal erred by requiring proof of an abuse of process and in ordering a new trial. The Crown’s decision whether to consent to a judge‑alone trial under s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code does not fall within core prosecutorial discretion and could be reviewed by the trial judge under inherent jurisdiction on a standard lower than abuse of process. It is not necessary, however, to decide the precise standard given that remedial jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter also applies in the instant case as a legal route through which the trial judge could override the prosecutorial decision. Since the trial judge found that a jury trial would likely breach V’s right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter, she had jurisdiction to order a judge‑alone trial as a s. 24(1) Charter remedy.”

“Per Rowe and Kasirer JJ.: There is agreement with the majority’s disposition and its conclusion that the trial judge did not err in overriding the Crown’s choice under s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code to proceed with a jury. Even though the trial judge erred in qualifying the power conferred to the Crown by s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code as a tactical decision reviewable on a reasonableness and fairness standard, her conclusion can still be upheld. The Crown’s decision constitutes an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and is therefore only reviewable on an abuse of process standard. In the exceptional circumstances of the instant case, the Crown’s refusal to consent to a judge-alone trial amounted to an abuse of process.”

R v Monro, 2025 MBCA 64: Appeal of a second degree murder conviction. Discussion of the defence of provocation, citing R v Barrett, 2022 ONCA 355, and the air of reality test (R v Cinous, 2002 SCC 29).

R v Chief, 2025 MBCA 56: Appeal of conviction and asked for leave to appeal, if granted, the accused’s sentence of seven years incarceration. Both were dismissed. Discussion of identification evidence and misapprehensions of evidence.

R v Keeper and Dumas, 2025 MBKB 81: Sentencing of co-defendants who pled guilty to manslaughter. Both defendants have significant Gladue factors and IQs below 70. Moral culpability was discussed, citing R v Laberge, 1995 ABCA 196 and R v McLeod, 2016 MBCA 7.

Family Law

Garrett v. Garrett, 2025 MBKB 90: Issues of retroactive and ongoing spousal support for petitioner (including entitlement and duration); amount of any credit to the respondent respecting the agreed quantum of his retroactive child support payment for the parties’ younger child, equalization of family property and certain other property-related issues. Discussion of jurisdiction over retroactive orders of child support.

Labour and Employment Law

Hebert v. Colin’s Mechanical Service Ltd., 2025 MBKB 87: Interpretation of an employment agreement. Principles of contractual interpretation, summarized in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, were used. Claim dismissed.

Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Small Estate (Re), 2025 MBCA 63: Appeal addresses the proper application of Vout v Hay, [1995] 2 SCR 876, 1995 CanLII 105 (SCC) to determine whether the testator had the requisite knowledge and approval regarding the preparation and execution of the last will and testament.

Re Clifford Estate; Clifford v. Barrow et al., 2025 MBKB 80: Discussion of minimal evidentiary threshold in probate cases as described in Neuberger v. York, 2016 ONCA 191, Security for costs (Winnipeg Equine Centre Inc. v. Dolinski et al., 2025 MBKB 41), and vacant possession (Landmark Shawn Oaks Development Ltd. v. Fallis, 2021 BCSC 883, Watson v. Strong, 2014 BCSC 754).

Legislation

Federal

Recent Votes

See here for the latest activity.

Provincial

The House adjourned on June 2, 2025.

The 2nd Session of the 43rd Legislature will reconvene on Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.

Current Bills    |    Bill Status

New Regulations