There is a general presumption, based on principles of access to justice, matters will be heard in the community in which the incident is alleged to have occurred. It is in the public interest to have matters heard in the community or the closest judicial centre so that members of the affected community can participate fully in the proceedings and see that justice is done.
There may be extenuating circumstances where the above principles should not apply. If that is the case and counsel are seeking to have any matter heard in a judicial centre other than the judicial centre closest to where the incident is alleged to have occurred, counsel shall bring an application before the presiding judge, in the originating judicial centre in which the incident is alleged to have occurred, requesting the matter be transferred to another judicial court centre.
This protocol applies to all jurisdictions and all matters and is effective immediately.
The original signed by Chief Judge Margaret Wiebe on July 25, 2019.
These programs are replays of previously recorded live presentations offered in-person only in the Law Society Classroom. Lunch and refreshments are not included. Feel free to bring your own refreshments.
Avoiding Cyber Dangers
Procrastination and Professional Liability Insurance Claims
2018 Hot Topics in Real Estate
Renouncing U.S. Citizenship – Why, How and What are the Consequences?
This decision deserves decision of the week status for its lengthy and exhaustive analysis of the Torrens system. Beard, J.A.’s analysis included resulting trusts and indefeasibility of title, the origins and goals of the Torrens system, both here and in Australasia where it originated, and the interplay between indefeasibility and trusts. The decision also cites a lengthy bibliiography of articles and texts that were consulted, written between 1859 and 2016.
 While there are decisions on the interpretation of indefeasibility legislation and its effect on the enforcement of unregistered claims, including resulting trust claims, against real property from the appellate courts in the other western provinces, those decisions have, in some instances, come to different conclusions. There is, to my knowledge, no decision on point from this Court. Given that there are some differences between the language used in the real property title registry legislation in the various jurisdictions, it is necessary to undertake a review of the origins and goals of the registry systems to determine the correct interpretation of the current legislation in Manitoba. As all of the western jurisdictions have land registry systems based on the Torrens system of land titles (the Torrens system), this analysis requires a review of the following: (a) the origins and goals of the Torrens system; (b) the interplay between the Torrens indefeasibility principle and trusts; and (c) Manitoba’s RPA, the effect of the indefeasibility provision and whether trusts can co-exist with indefeasibility.