R. v. Scott (R.K.), [2016] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 10
| Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
| Judge | Monnin, Mainella and Pfuetzner, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Manitoba) |
| Subject Matter | CRIMINAL LAW |
| Citation | [2016] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 10,2016 MBCA 30,[2016] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 10 (CA) |
| Date | 14 March 2016 |
-
- 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
2 practice notes
-
R. v. Kon and Duke, 2020 MBQB 18
...[44] In coming to my conclusion, I have considered cases relied on by the Crown including: R. v. Scott, 2016 MBCA 30 (CanLII), R. v. Richard (D.R.) et al., 2013 MBCA 105 (CanLII), and R. v. Azizi, 2016 MBQB 195 (CanLII). I find these cases to be [45] ......
-
R v Devloo, 2020 MBCA 3
...confused with a different interpretation of the evidence than the one adopted by the trial judge” (at para 32; see also R v Scott, 2016 MBCA 30 at para 11). Further, when reviewing the reasons of the trial judge, the appellate court must not “dissect, parse, or microscop......
2 cases
-
R. v. Kon and Duke, 2020 MBQB 18
...[44] In coming to my conclusion, I have considered cases relied on by the Crown including: R. v. Scott, 2016 MBCA 30 (CanLII), R. v. Richard (D.R.) et al., 2013 MBCA 105 (CanLII), and R. v. Azizi, 2016 MBQB 195 (CanLII). I find these cases to be [45] ......
-
R v Devloo, 2020 MBCA 3
...confused with a different interpretation of the evidence than the one adopted by the trial judge” (at para 32; see also R v Scott, 2016 MBCA 30 at para 11). Further, when reviewing the reasons of the trial judge, the appellate court must not “dissect, parse, or microscop......