R v R.I.G., 2020 SKCA 26
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Judge | The Honourable Madam Justice Schwann,The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit,The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan-Froslie |
| Citation | 2020 SKCA 26 |
| Date | 17 March 2020 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan) |
| Docket Number | CACR3240 |
-
- 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
15 practice notes
-
R v D.B.,
...R v Boyer, 2018 SKCA 6 at para 56, [2018] 6 WWR 322; R v Wolff, 2019 SKCA 103 at paras 40–44, 380 CCC (3d) 223; R v R.I.G., 2020 SKCA 26 at para 27; and R v Adebogun, 2021 SKCA 136 at para 22, [2022] 1 WWR 187 [Adebogun]). [24] &#x......
-
R v Van Deventer,
...an accused, may no longer raise a reasonable doubt. Mr. Justice Layh’s decision was upheld on appeal recently in R. v. R.I.G. 2020 SKCA 26. And so I must not consider Mr. Van Deventer’s evidence in isolation. Rather, I consider his testimony, his denial, in the ......
-
Bhagaloo v M2 Construction & Development Ltd.,
...if they show why the trial judge made the decision that was made, not how it was done: see R.E.M. at para 17, and R v R.I.G., 2020 SKCA 26 at para 74. A trial judge is not obligated to “refer to or resolve every inconsistency raised by the defence in the course of his or he......
-
R v M.G.S.,
...[69] These principles were recently reviewed by this Court in R v J.A., 2016 SKCA 153 [J.A.], R v Thompson, 2017 SKCA 33, and R v R.I.G., 2020 SKCA 26. [70] Since the “foundations of the judge’s decision must be discernable, when looked at in the context of the evidence, the submissions of ......
Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
-
R v D.B.,
...R v Boyer, 2018 SKCA 6 at para 56, [2018] 6 WWR 322; R v Wolff, 2019 SKCA 103 at paras 40–44, 380 CCC (3d) 223; R v R.I.G., 2020 SKCA 26 at para 27; and R v Adebogun, 2021 SKCA 136 at para 22, [2022] 1 WWR 187 [Adebogun]). [24] &#x......
-
R v Van Deventer,
...an accused, may no longer raise a reasonable doubt. Mr. Justice Layh’s decision was upheld on appeal recently in R. v. R.I.G. 2020 SKCA 26. And so I must not consider Mr. Van Deventer’s evidence in isolation. Rather, I consider his testimony, his denial, in the ......
-
Bhagaloo v M2 Construction & Development Ltd.,
...if they show why the trial judge made the decision that was made, not how it was done: see R.E.M. at para 17, and R v R.I.G., 2020 SKCA 26 at para 74. A trial judge is not obligated to “refer to or resolve every inconsistency raised by the defence in the course of his or he......
-
R v M.G.S.,
...[69] These principles were recently reviewed by this Court in R v J.A., 2016 SKCA 153 [J.A.], R v Thompson, 2017 SKCA 33, and R v R.I.G., 2020 SKCA 26. [70] Since the “foundations of the judge’s decision must be discernable, when looked at in the context of the evidence, the submissions of ......
Request a trial to view additional results