R v CJ, 2018 MBCA 65
| Judge | Madam Justice Holly C. Beard; Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin; Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Manitoba) |
| Case Date | June 04, 2018 |
| Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
| Citations | 2018 MBCA 65 |
-
- 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
7 practice notes
-
R. v. Percy, 2020 NSCA 11
...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 credibility assessment,......
-
R v Ibrahim,
...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 Oaks General Hospital, 2018 MBCA 57 at para [55] The accused argues that......
-
R v Merasty,
...at 221. See also: R v Haque, 2022 SKCA 124 at para 110; R v Thalheimer, 2022 SKCA 25 at para 45, 411 CCC (3d) 208; and R v CJ, 2018 MBCA 65 at paras 21–28, 362 CCC (3d) 137). In Lohrer, Binnie J. added that this is “a stringent standard”, that ȁ......
-
R. v. Cure, 2020 MBQB 175
...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 credibility assessment,......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
-
R. v. Percy, 2020 NSCA 11
...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 credibility assessment,......
-
R v Ibrahim,
...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 Oaks General Hospital, 2018 MBCA 57 at para [55] The accused argues that......
-
R v Merasty,
...at 221. See also: R v Haque, 2022 SKCA 124 at para 110; R v Thalheimer, 2022 SKCA 25 at para 45, 411 CCC (3d) 208; and R v CJ, 2018 MBCA 65 at paras 21–28, 362 CCC (3d) 137). In Lohrer, Binnie J. added that this is “a stringent standard”, that ȁ......
-
R. v. Cure, 2020 MBQB 175
...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 credibility assessment,......
Request a trial to view additional results