R v Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62
| Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
| Judge | Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton,Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella,Madam Justice Holly C. Beard |
| Docket Number | AR16-30-08553 |
| Citation | 2017 MBCA 62 |
| Date | 29 June 2017 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Manitoba) |
-
- 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
29 practice notes
-
Preliminary Matters and Remedies
...the case has taken is justified based on the parties’ reasonable reliance on the law as it previously existed.” 106 See R v Schenkels , 2017 MBCA 62 [ Schenkels ] and the discussion at paras 43–50. See also R v Nasery , 2017 ABQB 564. 107 DMS v R , 2016 NBCA 71 [ DMS ]. 108 Bill C-75, above......
-
Table of cases
...412, 415, 416 R v Schedel, 2003 BCCA 364..............................................................................208 R v Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62, [2017] 11 WWR 683, 384 CRR (2d) 266 ........................................................................438, 442, 444 R v Schmautz, [199......
-
R. v. Virk,
...the presumption of waiver when defence consents to a date remains the law post-Jordan, citing Warring at para. 17; R. v. Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62 at paras. 24 and 52; R. v. Mouchayleh, 2017 NSCA 51 at paras. 20–25; Béliveau c. R., 2016 QCCA 1549 at paras. 112–114; and R. v. Chang, 2019 ABCA ......
-
R v Carter, 2020 ABQB 481
...to a number of authorities, including R v Cabrera, 2016 ABQB 707 at paras 23-25, R v Nasery, 2017 ABQB 564 paras 46-55, and R v Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62 paras 45-50, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37664 (23 November 2017). I acknowledge that each of these authorities can be distinguished on......
Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
-
R v Carter, 2020 ABQB 481
...to a number of authorities, including R v Cabrera, 2016 ABQB 707 at paras 23-25, R v Nasery, 2017 ABQB 564 paras 46-55, and R v Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62 paras 45-50, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37664 (23 November 2017). I acknowledge that each of these authorities can be distinguished on......
-
R. v. Virk,
...the presumption of waiver when defence consents to a date remains the law post-Jordan, citing Warring at para. 17; R. v. Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62 at paras. 24 and 52; R. v. Mouchayleh, 2017 NSCA 51 at paras. 20–25; Béliveau c. R., 2016 QCCA 1549 at paras. 112–114; and R. v. Chang, 2019 ABCA ......
-
R. v. Bulhosen, 2019 ONCA 600
...for the appellants’ submission, it has been rejected by numerous decisions across the country. See, in particular: R. v. Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62, 384 C.R.R. (2d) 266, at paras. 43-50, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 268; and the decisions of the Ontario Superior Court......
-
R v Atkinson, 2018 MBCA 136
...from speculation. The trier of fact’s assessment can be set aside only where it is unreasonable” (at para 71). See also R v Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62 at para [96] Thus, based on all of the above, I would dismiss this ground of appeal. Ground 3—Failure to Properly Apply W(D) [97] Kirton argues......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Full Speed Ahead: Ontario Court Of Appeal's Comments On The Application Of Jordan To Re-Trials May Have Broad Impacts
...Jordan. Case Information R. v. MacIsaac, 2018 ONCA 650 Docket: C63910 Date of Decision: July 18, 2018 Footnote 1 See e.g. R v. Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62 at paras. 2 See e.g. R. v. Windibank, 2017 ONSC 855 at paras. 57-70. 3 See e.g. R. v. Gopie, 2017 ONCA 728 at paras. 128-142. 4 See e.g. Mis......
2 books & journal articles
-
Preliminary Matters and Remedies
...the case has taken is justified based on the parties’ reasonable reliance on the law as it previously existed.” 106 See R v Schenkels , 2017 MBCA 62 [ Schenkels ] and the discussion at paras 43–50. See also R v Nasery , 2017 ABQB 564. 107 DMS v R , 2016 NBCA 71 [ DMS ]. 108 Bill C-75, above......
-
Table of cases
...412, 415, 416 R v Schedel, 2003 BCCA 364..............................................................................208 R v Schenkels, 2017 MBCA 62, [2017] 11 WWR 683, 384 CRR (2d) 266 ........................................................................438, 442, 444 R v Schmautz, [199......