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 | Monday 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
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
7 practice notes
-
R. v. Percy,
...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 Jovel,
...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 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......
Get Started for Free
6 cases
-
R. v. Percy,
...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 Jovel,
...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......
Get Started for Free