News

• Law 360: Manitoba high court alters judge’s decision to issue ‘illogical’ consecutive sentence

• CTV: Judicial review of ethics ruling in Trudeau case can proceed, Supreme Court says
• HeinOnline: Fresh Reads | New HeinOnline Journals: June & July 2026: Legal scholarship never stands still, and neither does the Law Journal Library. This month’s additions bring together an impressive mix of new journals covering everything from commercial litigation and health law to societal security, legal equality, and international legal developments. Explore the newest titles now available in HeinOnline.

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.

Enhanced Credit for Pre-Trial Custody

Credit for time spent in pre-trial custody is now a well-established feature of sentencing in Canada, but its development reflects decades of judicial and legislative evolution. The current provision, s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code, was introduced through the Bail Reform Act, 1970–71–72 and permits a sentencing judge to take into account time spent in custody before sentencing [1].

Before legislative reform, commentators and law reform bodies recognized that remand detention effectively functioned as punishment and should therefore be reflected in any eventual sentence [2]. Canadian courts subsequently developed the practice of awarding enhanced credit; typically two days’ credit for each day spent in pre-trial custody. The Supreme Court of Canada endorsed this approach in R v Wust, recognizing enhanced credit as the default practice before Parliament amended the sentencing provisions [3].

In R v Summers, the Supreme Court explained that enhanced credit rested on two rationales. First, offenders held in pre-trial custody generally do not receive the benefit of parole eligibility or statutory early release for that period. Second, remand facilities have historically offered harsher conditions than sentenced correctional institutions [4]. These quantitative and qualitative considerations justified awarding credit at a rate greater than one-for-one, while exceptionally severe detention conditions occasionally warranted even higher credit.

Comparable principles exist in other common law jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, legislation requires that time spent on remand be deducted from a custodial sentence, while in the United States statutory reforms during the latter half of the twentieth century sought to ensure that defendants unable to obtain bail were not required to serve longer periods of incarceration than similarly situated offenders released before trial [5].

Although the legislative frameworks differ, the underlying principle remains consistent: sentencing should fairly account for time already spent in custody and avoid imposing longer periods of imprisonment solely because an accused was detained before trial.

Notes

1. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 719(3); Department of Justice Canada, The Review of the Reforms to Canada’s Bail System (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2011).
2. Allan Manson, “Pre-Sentence Custody and the Determination of a Sentence (Or How to Make a Mole Hill out of a Mountain)” (2004) 49:3 Criminal Law Quarterly 292; Martin L Friedland, Detention Before Trial (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965).
3. R v Wust, 2000 SCC 18, [2000] 1 SCR 455.
4. R v Summers, 2014 SCC 26 at paras 23–28, [2014] 1 SCR 575.
5. Criminal Justice Act 2003 (UK), c 44, ss 240ZA, 241; Donald R Stacy, “Constitutional Right to Sentence Credit for Pre-Trial Incarceration” (1972) 41:4 University of Cincinnati Law Review 823.

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 23, 2026 – Courtroom Renovations (Winnipeg Centre)

New Library Resources

New Print Titles

New Digital Titles (available on vLex)

Open access (OA) publishing helps break down the barriers that traditionally limit who can read and engage with legal scholarship. It expands access for practitioners, community advocates, and the public. In a field where transparency and accountability matter, OA can strengthen the democratic function of law by making knowledge more widely available.

Age and Immigration Policy in Canada: Toward an Equitable Approach

by Christina Clark-Kazak; UBC Press, 2026.

Pages 198; ePDF ISBN 9780774872690

“Discrimination on the basis of age and family status is deeply embedded in Canadian immigration law and policy. How and why does age function as part of a broader system of border control? Age and Immigration Policy in Canada draws on archival research, case studies, and interviews with lawyers, former public servants, and settlement workers to unpack the explicit and implicit justification for age qualifications in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations.” [Publishers description]

Full access available at:
UBC Press

Book Reviews

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

Canadian University Law: Essentials for Legal and Higher Education Professionals.
By Sayeh Hassan & Anna S.P. Wong.
Toronto: LexisNexis, 2025. xv, 212p.
Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 9780433533450 (softcover) $120.00.

Reviewed By

Julie A. Lavigne
Legal Studies Librarian
Carleton University

“Academic freedom and institutional autonomy, both foundations of the modern-day Canadian university, are surprisingly underdeveloped areas of the law. Courts have traditionally found that, despite receiving public funding and serving a public purpose, universities are not government institutions and therefore are not bound by laws that would otherwise apply, most notably the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the same time, private law rules have often been found to be lacking. Lawyers Sayeh Hassan and Anna S.P. Wong have written Canadian University Law: Essentials for Legal and Higher Education Professionals to serve as a road map for navigating this public–private terrain.”

Click here for the full review

Events

Upcoming Events

Substantive Law

Civil Litigation

Bains v Loader, 2026 MBCA 66: Defendant appeal of dismissal of motions to stay claims. Discussion of the principles governing jurisdiction simpliciter, principles applicable to forum non conveniens, and The International Commercial Arbitration Act.

Gamblin et al. v The Government of Manitoba, 2026 MBKB 101: Reasons for granted motions to approve the settlement of this class action and the fees of class counsel. As certified, this class action alleged that the Government of Manitoba placed vulnerable people in solitary confinement for lengthy and indefinite periods of time. Such conduct, the plaintiffs alleged, constitutes a breach of Manitoba’s fiduciary duties to inmates, systemic negligence, and breaches of inmates’ rights under s. 7 and s. 12 of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The plaintiffs sought damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Criminal Law

R v Getty, 2026 MBPC 48: Accused pled guilty to aggravated assault. Accused has a history of mental illness, including schizophrenia and methamphetamine use disorder. In R v Okemow, 2017 MBCA 59, the Court outlined the considerations for determining whether and to what extent mental illness or cognitive limitations should impact on moral culpability. The accused showed no remorse for the assault and a pattern of worsening behaviour despite adequate wraparound supports. Accused was sentenced to 5 years incarceration, less time served.

R v Roulette, 2026 MBPC 46: MVA. Accused charged with Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Driving over .80 mg Causing Bodily Harm. Discussion of the admissibility of lab tests measuring BAC as a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business pursuant to section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act. The possibility of bolus drinking was raised by defense (R v Paszczenko, 2010 ONCA 615). Accused was convicted of both charges.

R v Cameron, 2026 MBPC 44: Accused brought a Rowbotham application (R v Rowbotham, 1988 CanLII 147 (ON CA)). He is making an application pursuant to sections 7, 11 and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The accused was appointed four Legal Aid lawyers; the first refused the certificate and the other three were dismissed by the accused. Rowbotham test is explained in R v Grant, 2003 MBQB 254. The accused must establish on a balance of probabilities that he was diligent and acted in good faith in attempting to retain counsel (R v Drury and Hazzard, 2000 MBCA 100). Accused did not establish that publicly funded counsel is constitutionally necessary to ensure fair trials on these charges. Application dismissed.

Family Law

Stevens v Stevens, 2026 MBKB 98: Respondent seeks permission to relocate children. The court has chosen to place the burden of proving whether relocation is in the best interest of the children, as s. 16.94 of the Divorce Act provides the Court with the discretion to shift the burden if the time-sharing arrangement followed by the parties is pursuant to an Interim Order, as is the case here. The Court used a blended analysis (Chapman v Somerville, 2022 SKCA 88) and best interests analysis (Barendregt v Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22) to assist with determination. W.S.C. v K.A.Y., 2008 MBQB 129 was cited regarding credibility in relocation cases. Issues of coercive control, factors as described by V.K.G. v I.G., 2023 ONSC 6329 and Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. Request to relocate granted.

Legislation

Federal

See here for the latest activity.

Provincial

The House adjourned on June 1, 2026.

The 3rd Session of the 43rd Legislature will reconvene Tuesday, September 29th, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

Current Bills    |    Bill Status

New Regulations