R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116

JudgeMadam Justice Freda M. Steel; Madam Justice Holly C. Beard; Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella
CourtCourt of Appeal (Manitoba)
Case DateNovember 21, 2019
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations2019 MBCA 116
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
25 practice notes
  • R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • 31 d2 Março d2 2020
    ...despite obvious frailties, can be a sign of uncritical analysis by a trial judge that justifies appellate interference: R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116 at para 43, citing R v Burke, [1996] 1 SCR 474 at para 53 4. The principles applied [35] In my view, the trial judge’s decision, when read as a wh......
  • R. v. Percy, 2020 NSCA 11
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 12 d3 Fevereiro d3 2020
    ...the general principles of law with respect to misapprehension of evidence were recently reviewed by Mainella J.A. in R. v. Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116, which I would respectfully adopt: 34 In R v Whiteway (BDT) et al, 2015 MBCA 24, the following summary was provided as to what is, and what is not,......
  • R v Peters, 2020 MBCA 17
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 4 d2 Fevereiro d2 2020
    ...second ground, it is long established that a trial judge’s credibility determinations are subject to great deference. [6] In R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116, Mainella JA observed (at para In considering whether a verdict is unreasonable, the appellate court must re-examine and, to some extent at l......
  • R v Singh et al, 2020 MBCA 61
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 11 d4 Junho d4 2020
    ...of a Crown witness is an error of law that undermines the fairness of the trial and can lead to a miscarriage of justice (see R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116; see also R v Owen, 2001 CarswellOnt 3852 at para 3 [32] However, this is a difficult argument to make as the accused must meet the threshol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • 31 d2 Março d2 2020
    ...despite obvious frailties, can be a sign of uncritical analysis by a trial judge that justifies appellate interference: R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116 at para 43, citing R v Burke, [1996] 1 SCR 474 at para 53 4. The principles applied [35] In my view, the trial judge’s decision, when read as a wh......
  • R. v. Percy, 2020 NSCA 11
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 12 d3 Fevereiro d3 2020
    ...the general principles of law with respect to misapprehension of evidence were recently reviewed by Mainella J.A. in R. v. Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116, which I would respectfully adopt: 34 In R v Whiteway (BDT) et al, 2015 MBCA 24, the following summary was provided as to what is, and what is not,......
  • R v Peters, 2020 MBCA 17
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 4 d2 Fevereiro d2 2020
    ...second ground, it is long established that a trial judge’s credibility determinations are subject to great deference. [6] In R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116, Mainella JA observed (at para In considering whether a verdict is unreasonable, the appellate court must re-examine and, to some extent at l......
  • R v Dowd,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 16 d4 Março d4 2023
    ...a trier of fact can use their common sense to decide whether they accept some, all or none of a witness’s evidence (see R v Jovel, 2019 MBCA 116 at paras 27-28).  Juries are routinely given such instructions. [36]           ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT