R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2

Docket Number03-19-001 CAP
JudgeThe Honourable Mr. Justice Frans Slatter; The Honourable Madam Justice Jolaine Antonio; The Honourable Mr. Justice Kevin Feehan
CourtCourt of Appeal of Nunavaut
Case DateApril 09, 2020
JurisdictionNunavut
Citations2020 NUCA 2
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
6 practice notes
  • R. v. Nahanee, 2021 BCCA 13
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of British Columbia
    • January 14, 2021
    ...added.] [48] A similar result was obtained in Gabriel c. R., 2015 QCCA 1391, which cited both R. v. R.R.B. and Keough. [49] In R v. Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, the majority of the Nunavut Court of Appeal took a similar approach, concluding that a sentencing judge’s failure to advise counsel of his i......
  • R v Kritaqliluk, 2021 NUCA 4
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nunavaut
    • March 8, 2021
    ...on “jumping” Crown submissions [15]        Crown counsel and defence agree that the appropriate statement of law is set out in R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, paras 54-55, 60. [16]        The sentencing judge had “a duty to signal to counsel that [he] was having some difficulties with what was being......
  • R. v. Kolola, 2020 NUCJ 38
    • Canada
    • Nunavut Court of Justicie
    • November 17, 2020
    ...1, s. 718.04. [52] R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para 108. [53] That is, a period of jail of two years less a day, served in Nunavut. [54] 2020 NUCA 2. [55] 2015 NUCA [56] Ibid at para 9. [67]   The Crown submitted two cases from the Nunavut Court of Appeal. In R v Parr,[54]...
  • R v Strathdee, 2020 ABCA 306
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 3, 2020
    ...SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321. More fundamentally, an uneven scrutiny argument is not a proxy for reassessing credibility generally: R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2 at para 42, citing Wanihadie at para 43; R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37 at paras 88‑89, per Leurer JA (in dissent but not on this point). An appeal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • R. v. Nahanee, 2021 BCCA 13
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of British Columbia
    • January 14, 2021
    ...added.] [48] A similar result was obtained in Gabriel c. R., 2015 QCCA 1391, which cited both R. v. R.R.B. and Keough. [49] In R v. Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, the majority of the Nunavut Court of Appeal took a similar approach, concluding that a sentencing judge’s failure to advise counsel of his i......
  • R v Kritaqliluk, 2021 NUCA 4
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nunavaut
    • March 8, 2021
    ...on “jumping” Crown submissions [15]        Crown counsel and defence agree that the appropriate statement of law is set out in R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, paras 54-55, 60. [16]        The sentencing judge had “a duty to signal to counsel that [he] was having some difficulties with what was being......
  • R. v. Kolola, 2020 NUCJ 38
    • Canada
    • Nunavut Court of Justicie
    • November 17, 2020
    ...1, s. 718.04. [52] R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para 108. [53] That is, a period of jail of two years less a day, served in Nunavut. [54] 2020 NUCA 2. [55] 2015 NUCA [56] Ibid at para 9. [67]   The Crown submitted two cases from the Nunavut Court of Appeal. In R v Parr,[54]...
  • R v Strathdee, 2020 ABCA 306
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 3, 2020
    ...SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321. More fundamentally, an uneven scrutiny argument is not a proxy for reassessing credibility generally: R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2 at para 42, citing Wanihadie at para 43; R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37 at paras 88‑89, per Leurer JA (in dissent but not on this point). An appeal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results