R. v. Seraji, 2020 BCSC 1417
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Judge | Honourable Mr. Justice Williams |
| Citation | 2020 BCSC 1417 |
| Docket Number | X082095 |
| Date | 23 September 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
-
- 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. Lucier,
...on the correctness standard. Applicable Framework and Standard of Review [16] In R. v. Seraji, 2020 BCSC 1417, the Court explained the legislative framework governing summary conviction appeals of provincial [11] ......
-
Brown v. Brousseau,
...to prove that an offence has been committed is the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt: Offence Act, ss. 2, 133; R. v. Seraji, 2020 BCSC 1417. Analysis [95] I have concluded that the Removal Motion was not validly passed. It follows that ......
4 cases
-
R. v. Lucier,
...on the correctness standard. Applicable Framework and Standard of Review [16] In R. v. Seraji, 2020 BCSC 1417, the Court explained the legislative framework governing summary conviction appeals of provincial [11] ......
-
2023 BCSC 669,
...of law and/or principle and are reviewable on the correctness standard. Applicable Framework and Standard of Review 16 In R. v. Seraji, 2020 BCSC 1417, the Court explained the legislative framework governing summary conviction appeals of provincial offences: [11] The province has authority ......
-
R v Lucier,
...of law and/or principle and are reviewable on the correctness standard. Applicable Framework and Standard of Review 16 In R. v. Seraji, 2020 BCSC 1417, the Court explained the legislative framework governing summary conviction appeals of provincial offences: [11] The province has authority ......
-
Brown v. Brousseau,
...to prove that an offence has been committed is the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt: Offence Act, ss. 2, 133; R. v. Seraji, 2020 BCSC 1417. Analysis [95] I have concluded that the Removal Motion was not validly passed. It follows that ......