News

• CBC: Carney picks former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour to be governor general “Francophone with long legal resumé to serve as the King’s representative in Canada”
• SLAW: Seeing Is Believing: Visualizing Legal Research
• Globe and Mail: When it comes to records, justice is blind “Canada lags other countries in making court decisions publicly and promptly available online. That comes at a cost to our democracy”
• APTN: Meggie Cywink calls for audit of national organizations receiving federal cash for ongoing MMIWG2S+ crisis.
• Canadian Bar Association – Federal Courts Bench and Bar Liaison Committee, are seeking CBA members who appear before the Federal Courts to provide them with their concerns, comments and feedback on issues of importance to their practice. Please send your reponse to Julie Terrien by May 15.

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.

Question: What are the requirement for rehearing a case in Manitoba?

Rehearings in appellate courts are among the rarest procedural remedies available in Canadian law. Manitoba courts, like appellate courts across Canada, place significant emphasis on the finality of litigation and therefore impose a very high threshold before a decided matter will be reheard. The governing principles demonstrate that a rehearing is not an opportunity to reargue a losing case, but rather an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice demand judicial reconsideration.

In Manitoba, rehearings in the Court of Appeal are governed by Rule 43.2 of the Manitoba Court of Appeal Rules. The procedural rules reflect a broader Canadian appellate principle: once a judgment has been formally entered, the court generally loses jurisdiction over the matter.

This principle is summarized in The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, 5th edition:

“An appeal court has the power to rehear an appeal, even after it has given its judgment, provided that the judgment has not been signed and entered. After its judgment has been signed and entered, the court is functus officio and no longer has jurisdiction over the proceeding.” ⁋12.214

The doctrine of functus officio is foundational to appellate procedure. Once a court has completed its adjudicative task and formally entered judgment, it ordinarily cannot revisit the merits of the case except in narrowly defined circumstances. This doctrine promotes certainty, stability, and confidence in judicial outcomes.

The restrictive approach to rehearings is also reflected nationally. As explained in Sopinka, Gelowitz and Rankin on the Conduct of an Appeal, 6th edition:

“A party may make a motion to the Court for a re-hearing of an appeal at any time before judgment is rendered, or within 30 days after the judgment. … Re-hearings will only be granted in very exceptional circumstances.” “⁋7.100

The reluctance of courts to reopen decided appeals stems primarily from the principle of finality. Litigation must eventually come to an end. Without finality, parties could continually seek reconsideration of adverse decisions, undermining judicial efficiency and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed this principle in Brandon Condominium Corporation No 68 v. TJR Investment Holdings Ltd 2022 MBCA 87. The Court emphasized that rehearings are granted only in “very exceptional circumstances” because a lower threshold would erode the finality of litigation.

The Court relied upon the earlier Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in Willman v Ducks Unlimited (Canada), 2005 MBCA 13).

In Willman, the Manitoba Court of Appeal identified three primary circumstances in which a rehearing may be appropriate:

1. A patent error on a material point appearing on the face of the reasons;
2. The appeal was decided on a point of law that counsel had no opportunity to address, and which could not reasonably have been foreseen;
3. The court overlooked or misapprehended the evidence or the law in a significant respect, creating a serious risk of miscarriage of justice.

Each of these grounds reflects a concern not merely with disagreement, but with fundamental fairness and judicial accuracy.

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

Court of Appeal

Notices

• • • • April 1, 2026 – Hours of Registry Counter Services (NEW coming into effect on April 20, 2026)

  Provincial Court

  Notices

  • • • • April 7, 2026 – Courtroom 301 Renovations (Winnipeg Centre)

New Library Resources

New Print Titles

Book Reviews

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

Fundamental Principles of Canadian Unjust Enrichment. By Mitchell McInnes. Toronto: LexisNexis, 2025. xvii, 422p. Includes table of cases, table of statutes, and index. ISBN 9780433527749 (softcover) $120.00.

Reviewed By
Melaine R. Bueckert
Legal Research Counsel
Manitoba Court of Appeal

“For readers unfamiliar with the topic of unjust enrichment, it stands alongside contract and tort as a primary source of private law obligations in Canada, although it is generally less well known than those other grounds of liability. This book is a pared-down, introductory version of McInnes’s comprehensive text The Canadian Law of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution, 2nd ed (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2022), which weighs in at 2,534 pages. This basic text aims to introduce the subject without getting too bogged down by the details.

…

It is apparent that the author of this text fundamentally disagrees with the approach taken by John McCamus, the other leading author in this area.

…

Given the obvious differences of opinion between these two leading authors, it might be advisable for academic libraries to purchase both. Practitioners in the area may also wish to consult the work of both authors.“

Click here for the full review

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.

Unsettling Colonialism in the Canadian Criminal Justice System

edited by Vicki Chartrand and Josephine Savarese; AUPress, 2023

“Canada’s criminal justice system reinforces dominant relations of power and further entrenches the country in its colonial past. Through the mechanisms of surveillance, segregation, and containment, the criminal justice system ensures that Indigenous peoples remain in a state of economic deprivation, social isolation, and political subjection. By examining the ways in which the Canadian justice system continues to sanction overtly discriminatory and racist practices, the authors in this collection demonstrate clearly how historical patterns of privilege and domination are extended and reinforced.” [Publishers description]

Full access available at:
Athabasca University Press
CanLII Commentary

Events

Upcoming Events

Substantive Law

Administrative Law

KT v University of Manitoba, 2026 MBCA 35: Appeal of a dismissed judicial review of a decision made by the respondent to not extend the one-year time limit for filing a complaint, as prescribed in s 23 of The Human Rights Code. The court found the reviewing judge properly applied the standard of reasonableness found in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. Appeal dismissed.

Drake v Western Region (Director), 2026 MBCA 33: Applicant sought leave to appeal a decision made by the Social Services Appeal Board, per section 23(1) of the The Social Services Appeal Board Act. The court cited Cann v Access Fort Garry (Director), 2025 MBCA 18 regarding the test to be applied on a motion to extend the time for leave to appeal in the context of an application for leave to appeal an order of a board. Applicant made claims of bias, the test for which is found in Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25. The court was not satisfied that the applicant raises an arguable ground of appeal. Application dismissed.

QMC Quantum Minerals Corp v Manitoba, 2026 MBCA 34: Appeal concerns the authority of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, under The Provincial Parks Act, to permit and regulate the use and occupation of land located in a provincial park that is subject to a mining claim recorded in accordance with The Mines and Minerals Act. The court writes at para. 33, “Appellate consideration of a subordinate court’s review of an administrative decision involves the determination of whether the reviewing judge correctly chose and applied the standard of review (see Northern Regional Health Authority v Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42[).] […] These are questions of law, reviewable on the correctness standard (see Ontario (Attorney General) v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 SCC 4[).]” The court found the reviewing judge did not err in identifying reasonableness as the standard of review nor did he err in applying that standard. Appeal dismissed.

Civil Litigation

Nygard v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2026 MBCA 36: Per r. 25.2 of The Court of Appeal Act, plaintiff moves for leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing his appeal of an order refusing to compel the production of answers to refused undertakings. Knight v Daraden Investments Ltd et al, 2022 MBCA 69 cited for guidance as to when leave to appeal should be granted or denied. Analysis of MBKB rule 25.11 as it relates to the motion for leave to appeal. Motion dismissed.

Wiebe et al. v. Wiebe, 2026 MBKB 46: Applicants seek relief under s. 101(1)(a),  s. 101(1)(b), ss. 81(1) and 92 of The Mental Health Act. Court cited Kennedy et al. v. McKenzie, 2020 MBQB 139, Stewart (Re), 2014 BCSC 2321, and Smith et al. v. Smith et al., 2007 MBQB 126. Applicants were mostly successful.

McIntosh et al. v. Thiessen et al., 2026 MBKB 49: Case concerns a claim of defamation. The leading decision in Canada on the law of defamation is found in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61. The defence of justification has been characterized in Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23. The defence of fair comment was identified in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40. The defendant’s statements were not found to be defamatory.

Manitoba Hydro v. Wawasum Energy Inc. et al., 2026 MBKB 53: Interpleader action. Issues: Is the lien valid or does ss. 3(3) of the Builders’ Lein Act bar the filing of the lien?; What amount of the funds should be paid by into court, or otherwise to the legally interested parties. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC) and R. v. Carignan, 2025 SCC 43 cited regarding interpretation broadly and American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Manitoba Hydro, 2018 MBQB 27 regarding ss. 3(3) of the BLA in particular. Discussion of the phrase “plant appurtenant thereto” (“des usines y annexées”) in the context of the BLA. Relief granted and payments directed accordingly.

Criminal Law

R v. Benoit, 2026 MBKB 59: Accused charged with first degree murder. Crown’s case is built on circumstantial evidence. The leading case on circumstantial evidence is R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. Leading case regarding post-offence conduct as circumstantial evidence. R. v. White, 1998 CanLII 789 (SCC) and R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6. When considering if the accused had the intent to kill the deceased the court cited R. v. Walle, 2012 SCC 41 and R. v. V.(O.), 2015 BCCA 449. Among other cases, R. v. Jacquard, 1997 CanLII 374 (SCC) and R . v. Whiteway (B.D.T.) et al., 2015 MBCA 24 were cited when analyzing the accused’s planning and deliberation. The accused was found guilty of first degree murder.

R v. Wright, 2026 MBKB 54: Defendant charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Test to be applied set out by the R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5, and clarified further in R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26. At para. 7, Mcarthy, J. writes that the test is “more stringent than that required for a conviction for driving offences under The Highway Traffic Act[.]” At para. 42, “His speed was clearly too fast for conditions and may well have constituted negligent, careless, or imprudent driving, however, I find that it was not a marked departure from the norm sufficient to support a finding that he is guilty of dangerous driving pursuant to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Family Law

Zangana v. Noubani, 2026 MBKB 45: The wife filed a petition for divorce. The husband filed a petition for annulment. The court cites Lowe v. A.A., 2018 ONSC 3509 as the most comprehensive and referred to decision on the law of annulments in Canadian jurisdictions. The petition for annulment was dismissed.

Legislation

Federal

Recent Votes

See here for the latest activity.

Provincial

Current Bills    |    Bill Status

New Regulations