R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32

JurisdictionManitoba
JudgeMr. Justice Michel A. Monnin,Madam Justice Freda M. Steel,Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner
Citation2020 MBCA 32
Docket NumberAR18-30-09144
CourtCourt of Appeal (Manitoba)
Date16 March 2020
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
5 practice notes
  • Beaulieu et al v Winnipeg (City of) et al,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • October 11, 2022
    ...Demonstrating a misapprehension requires a plainly identifiable error and an actual mistake.  As explained by Steel JA in R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32 (at para A misapprehension of the evidence may refer to a mistake as to the substance of the evidence, a failure to consider evidence relev......
  • R v Dowd,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • March 16, 2023
    ...the parties that a trier of fact’s credibility assessment must be grounded in the evidence.  As Steel JA stated in R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32, “[a]n inference which does not flow logically and reasonably from established facts cannot be made and is merely conjecture and spe......
  • R v NBT,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • March 28, 2023
    ...assumptions that are not grounded in the evidence” (R v JC, 2021 ONCA 131 at para 58; see also paras 59-61, 63, 74; R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32 at para 22; R v Pastro, 2021 BCCA 149 at paras 2-4, 40-52; and R v Mazhari-Ravesh, 2022 MBCA 63 at paras [18]      ......
  • R v Abbasi, 2020 MBCA 119
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • December 3, 2020
    ...conclusions of a trial judge unless there has been palpable and overriding error (R v Wright, 2013 MBCA 109 at para 30; and R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32 at para [23] A trial judge’s decision to admit rebuttal evidence is “discretionary and, as a result will generally be accorded deference. Howe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Beaulieu et al v Winnipeg (City of) et al,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • October 11, 2022
    ...Demonstrating a misapprehension requires a plainly identifiable error and an actual mistake.  As explained by Steel JA in R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32 (at para A misapprehension of the evidence may refer to a mistake as to the substance of the evidence, a failure to consider evidence relev......
  • R v Dowd,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • March 16, 2023
    ...the parties that a trier of fact’s credibility assessment must be grounded in the evidence.  As Steel JA stated in R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32, “[a]n inference which does not flow logically and reasonably from established facts cannot be made and is merely conjecture and spe......
  • R v NBT,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • March 28, 2023
    ...assumptions that are not grounded in the evidence” (R v JC, 2021 ONCA 131 at para 58; see also paras 59-61, 63, 74; R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32 at para 22; R v Pastro, 2021 BCCA 149 at paras 2-4, 40-52; and R v Mazhari-Ravesh, 2022 MBCA 63 at paras [18]      ......
  • R v Abbasi, 2020 MBCA 119
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • December 3, 2020
    ...conclusions of a trial judge unless there has been palpable and overriding error (R v Wright, 2013 MBCA 109 at para 30; and R v Kionke, 2020 MBCA 32 at para [23] A trial judge’s decision to admit rebuttal evidence is “discretionary and, as a result will generally be accorded deference. Howe......
  • 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