R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Judge | Richards C.J.S., Barrington-Foote and Tholl JJ.A. |
| Citation | 2020 SKCA 65 |
| Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan) |
| Docket Number | CACR3010 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 practice notes
-
R v D.B.,
...be shown to depend on a material misapprehension of the evidence (R v Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80 at para 1, [2004] 3 SCR 732 [Lohrer]; R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at para 20 [C.B.]). The standard that an appellant must meet in this respect is stringent; they must establish that: (i) the misapprehension......
-
R v Paproski,
...rather than to the detail” (Lohrer at para 2): also see R v C.L.Y., 2008 SCC 2 at para 19, [2008] 1 SCR 5 [C.L.Y.], and R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at paras 21–23. With this framework in mind, I will examine the alleged misapprehensions individually. I am mindful that their cumulative effect is ......
-
R v Power,
...be shown to depend on a material misapprehension of the evidence (R v Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80 at para 1, [2004] 3 SCR 732 [Lohrer]; R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at para 20 [C.B.]). This, too, represents a stringent standard for an appellant to meet. In order to demonstrate that a misapprehension of t......
-
D.J.S. v. R.,
...miscarriage of justice because of a misapprehension of evidence. This distinction was described by Richards C.J. in R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at para [20] In assessing C.B.’s argument, it is necessary to begin by briefly confirming the controlling legal principles. First, as per s. 686(......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
-
R v D.B.,
...be shown to depend on a material misapprehension of the evidence (R v Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80 at para 1, [2004] 3 SCR 732 [Lohrer]; R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at para 20 [C.B.]). The standard that an appellant must meet in this respect is stringent; they must establish that: (i) the misapprehension......
-
R v Paproski,
...rather than to the detail” (Lohrer at para 2): also see R v C.L.Y., 2008 SCC 2 at para 19, [2008] 1 SCR 5 [C.L.Y.], and R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at paras 21–23. With this framework in mind, I will examine the alleged misapprehensions individually. I am mindful that their cumulative effect is ......
-
R v Schreiner,
...the misapprehension was material and essential to the trial judge's reasoning: R v Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80, [2004] 3 SCR 732; and R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at para 24 [ C.B.]. [26] A misapprehension of the evidence may refer to a failure to consider evidence relevant to a material issue, a mistake......
-
R v Power,
...be shown to depend on a material misapprehension of the evidence (R v Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80 at para 1, [2004] 3 SCR 732 [Lohrer]; R v C.B., 2020 SKCA 65 at para 20 [C.B.]). This, too, represents a stringent standard for an appellant to meet. In order to demonstrate that a misapprehension of t......
Request a trial to view additional results