R. v. C.J., 2019 SCC 8
| Judge | Wagner, Richard; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Brown, Russell |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | February 12, 2019 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | 2019 SCC 8 |
-
- 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. Percy, 2020 NSCA 11
...as a misapprehension simply because it does not agree with it, it raises some unease or concern, or it may be a mistake (see R v CJ, 2019 SCC 8, adopting 2018 MBCA 65 at paras 67-68; and Sinclair at para 53). This is particularly the case when the interpretation of evidence is based on a cr......
-
R v Ibrahim,
...A palpable error is an error that is obvious. An overriding error is one that goes to the very core of the outcome of the case (see R v CJ, 2019 SCC 8, adopting the dissenting reasons of Pfuetzner JA in R v CJ, 2018 MBCA 65 at para 72 (not in dissent on this point); and Lantin et al v Seven......
-
R. v. Cure, 2020 MBQB 175
...as a misapprehension simply because it does not agree with it, it raises some unease or concern, or it may be a mistake (see R v CJ, 2019 SCC 8, adopting 2018 MBCA 65 at paras 67-68; and Sinclair at para 53). This is particularly the case when the interpretation of evidence is based on a cr......
-
Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy
...the purposes of s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code. Oral Judgments Criminal Law: Sexual Offences R. v. C.J., 2018 MBCA 65; 2019 SCC 8 (38220) The Chief Justice: “For the reasons of Justice Pfuetzner, we would allow the appeal. More particularly, we agree with the dissenting judge that the trial......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
-
R. v. Percy, 2020 NSCA 11
...as a misapprehension simply because it does not agree with it, it raises some unease or concern, or it may be a mistake (see R v CJ, 2019 SCC 8, adopting 2018 MBCA 65 at paras 67-68; and Sinclair at para 53). This is particularly the case when the interpretation of evidence is based on a cr......
-
R v Ibrahim,
...A palpable error is an error that is obvious. An overriding error is one that goes to the very core of the outcome of the case (see R v CJ, 2019 SCC 8, adopting the dissenting reasons of Pfuetzner JA in R v CJ, 2018 MBCA 65 at para 72 (not in dissent on this point); and Lantin et al v Seven......
-
R. v. Cure, 2020 MBQB 175
...as a misapprehension simply because it does not agree with it, it raises some unease or concern, or it may be a mistake (see R v CJ, 2019 SCC 8, adopting 2018 MBCA 65 at paras 67-68; and Sinclair at para 53). This is particularly the case when the interpretation of evidence is based on a cr......
-
R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116
...as a misapprehension simply because it does not agree with it, it raises some unease or concern, or it may be a mistake (see R v CJ, 2019 SCC 8, adopting 2018 MBCA 65 at paras 67-68; and Sinclair at para 53). This is particularly the case when the interpretation of evidence is based o......