Here’s the Weekly Case Law Update for December 10, 2018.
Decisions covering the following topics:
- Civil Litigation
- European Union
- IP and Media
- Land Law
- Public Law
- Trusts and Chancery
If you are a member of the Law Society of Manitoba, and would like a copy of any of the decisions from the digest please contact the library and we will be happy to provide those for you.
Provincial government offices will be closed for the full day on Monday, December 24, 2018. In light of this closure, all Court of Queen’s Bench Registry offices in Manitoba will be closed on December 24, 2018 and reopen on Thursday December 27, 2018.
Documents subject to a filing deadline of December 24, 2018 will now be calculated to have a filing deadline of December 27, 2018.
Please note that parties must commence legal proceedings within specified limitation periods and that this notice does not change limitation deadlines.
Original notice available here.
The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench has issued the following practice direction regarding pre-trial briefs in civil actions:
When the Queen’s Bench Rules were most recently amended, the requirement to file a responding pre-trial brief was changed to the following:
Responding pre-trial brief
50.02(6) Any party to the action that wishes to file a responding pre-trial brief at the first pre-trial conference must file the brief with the court and serve it on all other parties at least seven days before the pre-trial conference.
The impetus for this amendment was to reconcile the issue of the responding party filing a pre-trial brief with the introduction of the screening function provided in Rule 50.04, wherein it was considered disproportionate to require the filing of a responding pre-trial brief if it was the responding party’s position that the pre-trial conference ought not to proceed. There has been an increasing number of pre-trial conferences where there is no suggestion that the pre-trial conference ought not to proceed, but the responding party has not filed a responding pre-trial brief on the basis of Rule 50.02(6). It was always anticipated that prudent practice would dictate that where an action is properly at a pre-trial conference, the responding party would file a pre-trial brief.
Given the potential disruption to the pre-trial conference process of not having responding pre-trial briefs, pending review of a related rule amendment by the Statutory Rules Committee, it is now directed that the responding party to a scheduled pre-trial conference file a pre-trial brief with the court and serve it on all other parties at least seven days before the pre-trial conference. Where it is the responding party’s position that the pre-trial conference ought not to proceed, the responding party, in the pre-trial brief, may indicate this position, along with its reasons. Where the responding party does not object to the pre-trial conference proceeding, the responding party’s brief must respond to the pre-trial brief of the party who sought the pre-trial conference, 2 including a response to the statement of the factual and legal issues in the action and the estimated duration of the trial. The responding party’s pre-trial brief should also address any pre-trial orders or directions that may be sought from the pre-trial judge.
Coming into effect
This Practice Direction comes into effect immediately.
In Episode 82 of The Docket, a legal podcast broadcast by Michael Spratt and Emilie Taman, the hosts summarized the latest issue of Criminological Highlights, itself a summary of research on criminal justice policy.
Criminological Highlights is designed to provide an accessible look at some of the more interesting, high quality, criminological research that is currently being published. Its focus is on research that is policy-relevant.
Table of Contents from the most current issue:
- What kinds of police activities suppress voter turnout?
- How are people affected by police shootings of unarmed civilians?
- Are politicians right when they suggest that higher rates of pretrial detention would reduce crime?
- Who benefits from high concentrations of immigrants in a neighbourhood?
- When punishments are decreased in a jurisdiction and crime goes up, is it possible to determine whether one caused the other?
- How good are people at evaluating forensic science evidence in court?
- Should restorative justice conferences be used with youths charged with crimes?
- Does it matter where accused people sit in court during their trials?
While the highlights are free, there may be a fee to access full text of the articles referenced. Contact us if you need further information.
And if you like legal podcasts, subscribe to The Docket. I find it very informative and entertaining.
With the beginning of the Fourth session of the 41st Legislature on November 20th, comes a slate of new bills.
Private Members’ Bills:
You may have noticed there are some missing numbers in the bills. I can’t say for certain, but I believe those numbers have been reserved for bills that are in the midst of being finalized. Watch for Bills 5, 6, 203 and 206 to appear later in the session.