News

• CP24: Supreme Court decides in favour of new rules around intimate partner violence.

• SLAW: How I Learned About Mentorship by Being “Exiled” to the Library.

• SLAW: The Legal Cost of Cutting Librarians.

• Law Society of Manitoba: Part-Time Practicing Fees Survey – deadline extended to Monday, June 22, 2026.

• LeDevoir: Les bibliothécaires des prisons fédérales sont sauvés [Federal prison librarians are saved].

Feature of the Month

New HeinOnline Database!

Introducing “LexBlog Library”

“For decades, legal professionals have shaped the understanding of the law through blogs, client alerts, and expert commentary published across the web. LexBlog Library brings this vital body of secondary law into HeinOnline as a structured, searchable, and permanent research collection.

Legal research does not stop with primary law. Researchers also need timely analysis that explains how new developments are interpreted in practice. While traditional secondary sources can take months or even years to reflect emerging issues, LexBlog Library brings real-time perspectives from real practitioners into HeinOnline’s trusted research environment.

Featuring insights from leading firms like Arnold & Porter and Holland & Knight, LexBlog Library shows how the law is interpreted and applied in real time by practicing attorneys.”

Check out this new resource behind the Member’s Portal in Heinonline

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.

Below are some highlighted releases from journals available through Westlaw.

Court Notices & Practice Directions

Court of Kings Bench

Practice Directions

• • • • May 5, 2026 – Detention Review Hearings Under Sections 520 and 525 of the Criminal Code 

Provincial Court

Notice

• • • May 15, 2026 – Courtroom Renovations (Winnipeg Centre)

New Library Resources

New Print Titles

Annotated 2026 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

“The definitive resource on the Federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and associated legislation for immigration lawyers and consultants. This concise and comprehensive guide contains all the latest legislative developments, as well as useful commentary on decisions that interpret the law. It is supplemented with numerous Editor’s Notes and case annotations, including new annotations. New in This Edition Updates to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and associated statutes, regulations, and other regulatory information. Numerous new cases involving applicants who successfully sought judicial review of refused study permit applications. New cases dealing with misrepresentation, including consideration of counsel’s failing and whether counsel caused actual prejudice. Canada v. Medhame (F.C.A.): considering the interpretation of s. 34(1)(f) of IRPA which concludes the phrase “contrary to Canada’s interests” required a nexus to Canada’s national security or the security of Canada. R. v. White (B.C. S.C.): prosecution under s. 24 of IRPA for employing a caregiver without a work permit. Yuekang Li v. Canada (F.C.): upholding an officer’s decision to refuse a study permit on the belief the applicant would engage in espionage under s. 34(1)(a) of IRPA. R. v. Ankur; R. v. Chandran (N.S. C.A.): confirmation that possible collateral consequences of return to own country does not elevate the criminal sentence to cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter. Antonio Caruso v. The Law Society of Ontario (Ont. S.C.J.): decisions on the scope of immigration services authorized by paralegals. Mahmoud Es-Sayyid Jaballah and Husnah Al-Mashtouli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Fed. Ct.): special reasons for award of costs in an application for mandamus where the officer continued to ask for documents the officer knew the applicant could not obtain.“

New Digital Titles

Available on vLex behind the LSM Member’s Portal

Brand Management in Canadian Law. Sixth Edition   

Brand Management in Canadian Law offers a comprehensive understanding of the intersections between branding processes and the application of Canadian laws and legislation. Now in its sixth edition, this is a vital guide created by intellectual property law and trademark expert John McKeown.

The book discusses fundamentals including the components that make up a brand, the consumer perception of a brand, brand equity, how a brand can be leveraged, and its integration into a system of brands. Additional chapters navigate the legal considerations relating to choosing a brand name, branding on the internet, protecting the components of a brand and developing effective brand management policies. The sixth edition has been fully updated and addresses, for example, sustainable development goals and social responsibility policies; the Charter of the French Language in Quebec; the involvement of brands in the metaverse; international applications under the Madrid Protocol; the new Code for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children; and revisions to the law and reference to over 160 decisions since the last edition. Thoroughly updated, the sixth edition of this seminal text will be of interest to businesspeople in the marketing field, law students, educators, practitioners, and beyond.” – publisher

Digital Evidence, 3rd Edition

“Digital Evidence, 3rd Edition offers a current and comprehensive examination of the legal principles and practical challenges surrounding digital evidence in Canada. Authors Gerald Chan and Justice Susan Magotiaux draw on their extensive expertise to explain foundational concepts and provide concrete guidance on using and responding to digital evidence at every stage of a criminal proceeding. In the third edition, Lindsay Board (defence, Daniel Brown Law LLP) and Rebecca De Filippis (Crown) have joined the author team to enhance the text’s practical focus and provide additional balance between Crown and defence perspectives.

This bestseller is designed to equip criminal practitioners with a solid understanding of the procedural, tactical, and strategic elements of gathering, admitting, and presenting digital evidence. Coverage addresses the full scope of digital evidence issues, including privacy rights, search and seizure of data, private communications, production orders, admissibility and authentication, disclosure obligations, and effective courtroom presentation. With two new chapters—Preparing for Trial and Artificial Intelligence— practitioners will learn how to confidently achieve trial-readiness, and emerging technologies reshaping investigative and evidentiary landscapes.” – publisher

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.

Online Resource: Jurisource.ca

“jurisource.ca est le seul site internet au monde à offrir gratuitement des milliers de ressources juridiques et terminologiques en français pour les professionnels œuvrant dans les provinces et territoires de common law.”

Book Reviews

Review taken from the Canadian Law Library Review vol 51 no 1

Beach Politics: Social, Racial, and Environmental Injustice on the Shoreline. Edited by Setha Low. New York: NYU Press, 2025. 336 p. Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 9781479821952 (softcover) US$35.00; ISBN 9781479821945 (hardcover) US$99.00; ISBN 9781479821969 (eBook) US$25.00.

Reviewed By

Emma Cornelius
Reference Librarian
Lawson Lundell LLP

“Beach Politics answers two core questions: Why is the public losing access to the beach worldwide, and what are the effects of this loss, particularly on marginalized peoples?

 …

Editor Setha Low brings together a wealth of expertise and lived experience in this collection. The outcome is a wellrounded book that will give readers a nuanced understanding of beaches as political spaces. The beach becomes not just a place to visit, enjoy, manage, or protect, but a space where the surrounding communities’ varied concerns, attitudes, and identities converge with global economic and social trends. This makes the beach worthy of study as a political space where social and climate justice, colonialism and racism, and power and resistance meet.”

Click here for the full review

Events

Upcoming Events

Substantive Law

Administrative Law

Gullu v Manitoba (Director, Centralized Services), 2026 MBCA 42: Application under s. 23 of The Social Services Appeal Board Act for leave to appeal an order of the Social Services Appeal Board. This application is a first, so there is no standard of review. The test for granting leave to appeal was set out in Klippenstein v Director, Point Douglas, 2011 MBCA 15 at para 2. It was found the applicant had not established grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success. Application for leave denied.

Chochinov v Inquiry Committee of the College of Occupational Therapists of Manitoba, 2026 MBCA 48: Appellant seeks a stay of discipline and penalty decisions pending his appeal pursuant to s. 48 of The Occupational Therapists Act. The three-part test for a stay pending appeal is set out in RJR — MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC). Appellant’s request for a stay pending appeal granted.

Civil Litigation

Schenker v Martin, 2026 MBKB 73: Claim for a prescriptive easement. Cites Klimack et al v Kroeker et al, 2020 MBCA 98, Niata Enterprises Ltd et al v Snowcat Property Holdings Limited, 2023 MBCA 48, and Wilson et al v Kornelsen, 2023 MBCA 99 regarding the criteria for an easement and The Prescription Act 1832 (UK), 2 & 3 Will IV, c. 71 regarding the statutory requirements. Applicant failed to meet one of the essential elements of a prescriptive easement: uninterrupted use. Application dismissed.

Chief Heidi Cook et al. v The Government of Manitoba et al., 2026 MBKB 65:

“[836] […] I considered the legal framework governing s. 35 of the Constitution Act, and how the jurisprudence dealing with Aboriginal rights has evolved in a way that permits and indeed requires in some circumstances, a departure from a strict application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Van der Peet test.  As noted, that test has been criticized for its limitations and for how it is ill fitting in a case like this one. […] Acknowledging and discussing as I do the limitations of Van der Peet, given recent and relevant recognition and affirmation in both federal and Manitoba legislation, to the extent it was even necessary to determine whether the plaintiffs had established an existing s. 35 right to self‑government in the area of CFS, I endorsed and employed (as it relates to that question) the legal framework proposed by the Quebec Court of Appeal in C-92 Reference Decision #1.

[…] [843]   I have determined that only the plaintiffs’ claim respecting the alleged breach of s. 35 of the Constitution Act will be certified.  The remainder of the plaintiffs’ motion for certification respecting breaches of any fiduciary duty, common law duty of care, ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter, and s. 36 of the Constitution Act, is dismissed.

[844]   I have determined that summary judgment will be granted respecting the plaintiffs’ claim alleging a breach of s. 35 of the Constitution Act.  The remainder of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment respecting breaches of any fiduciary duty, common law duty of care, ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter, and s. 36 of the Constitution Act, is dismissed.”

[links added]

Criminal Law

R. v Paul, 2026 MBKB 70: Accused pled guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine. Crown and defence jointly recommended a CSO. Discussion concerning whether the restrictions on sentencing discretion set out in R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, apply where the accused’s plea was entered on the basis that the sentencing would be contested. Among other cases, Greenberg, J. follows R. v. Wesley, 2025 ONCA 51, which states that quid pro quo is an essential element needed for Anthony-Cook restraints to apply. The range of 3-6 years found in R. v. Rocha, 2009 MBCA 26 has been regularly applied in Manitoba. Sentences below that range are based on “exceptional circumstances” (R v Tran (A), 2015 MBCA 120). The accused was found to have exceptional circumstances and the recommended CSO was imposed.

Family Law

Bernard v Bernard, 2026 MBCA 47: Appeal of spousal support variation order. A review of spousal support was triggered when child support payments ceased, per the party’s separation agreement. The Court found error in the application judge’s review of the order, combined with a lack of analysis resulted in a decision so clearly wrong as to warrant appellate intervention. At para. 25, “[T]he court must consider any separation agreements previously reached between the parties in coming to decisions regarding support. The major principles that govern this requisite consideration are derived from Miglin v Miglin, 2003 SCC 24 and LMP v LS, 2011 SCC 64.” Appeal allowed, variation order set aside, interim order reinstated.

LDM v AKS, 2026 MBKB 77: Primary issues: whether excerpts from the journal of a teenager (child hearsay) which were obtained and shared without consent should be admissible. If so, whether the excerpts and other evidence is enough to satisfy the onus to order a full assessment report be completed by a private family evaluator. Court cites Ostrovski v Ostrovski, 2021 MBQB 160 in weighing the probative v. prejudicial value of the child hearsay, as well as C.N.D. v J.A.D., 2021 MBQB 151, for guidance around evidentiary issues and assessment reports. It was found the journal entries should be expunged. A full assessment report was not found to be necessary, but a Brief Consultation is to be completed by Family Resolution Services.

Singh v Brar, 2026 MBKB 74: Respondent filed a notice of application seeking various relief in connection with a protection order obtained by Applicant for herself and for the parties’ two children, pursuant to The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act (DVSA). The protection order was obtained after the parties commenced divorce proceedings. Thomson, J., highlights the difference between the term “family violence” as defined by the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act, and the term “domestic violence” as defined by the DVSA. Thomson, J. goes on to write at para. 27, “[W]hen there is already a Family Division court proceeding involving the same parties, it ought only to be in extraordinary situations where without notice proceedings to obtain a protection order should be permitted or may be justified.” The Court found the protection order regarding the Applicant should remain in place, but the protection order concerning the children will be revoked to facilitate processes under the Divorce Act.

Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Coelho v Coelho et al., 2026 MBKB 78: Applicant seeks order to remove respondent as POA and seeks appointment in respondent’s place. Applicant claims respondent is in breach of the standard set in s. 19(2) and 22(1) of the POA Act (discussed in E.B. v. S.B. and B.K., 2010 MBQB 15 and Norris v. Norris, 2024 ABKB 21). The court found that the respondent was unable to comply with the requirements of POA, without finding deliberate wrongdoing. When considering the appointment of a new POA or committee, Woolley, J. writes at para. 73, “However, I note that during her submission counsel for the PGT outlined the process for the appointment of the PGT as committee without the requirement of a Court order.  As both parties indicated that they would accept the PGT acting as POA (albeit as relief in the alternative), they may wish to consult with the PGT about that process and how it could assume responsibility to act as the committee for Frank Sr.  I would encourage the parties to investigate this option prior to commencing further Court proceedings.”

Legislation

Federal

Recent Votes

See here for the latest activity.

Provincial

Current Bills    |    Bill Status

New Regulations