Podcasts about manitoba court

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Miller, 2025 MBCA 48 where police arrested a man after receiving a tip from a confidential informer, finding drugs and cash in his possession. The question to ponder was whether or not the police had the necessary grounds to make the arrest using the 3 C's — Was the information COMPELLING? Was the source CREDIBLE? And was the information CORROBORATED? Listen to learn how the Court of Appeal applied the test. You might just want to follow along to bolster your understanding in this area of law. Other case mentioned in the podcast upholding mandatory breath testing — R. v. Wright, 2025 SKCA 52. Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Pietz, 2025 MBCA 5 where police arrested a man in relation to the presumed death of another. After unsuccessfully trying to obtain a confession from the man, police took him for a lengthy drive in an effort to locate the victim's body. During the ride, police kept the man in handcuffs, used offensive and profane language, and did not provide him with shoes, a jacket or a blanket while he was outside the police vehicle in chilly weather. Did the man's removal from police headquarters in the middle of the night without his consent — along with the conditions of the ride — render the detention arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter? And was an additional s. 10(b) advisement about the right to consult counsel required for this procedure? Listen now and learn a little — or a lot!Low court ruling The 2025 International Use of Force Expert Conference April 29-May 1, 2025This conference is designed for professionals who have an interest in developing a deeper understanding of this subject matter area, or in building the foundational skills towards becoming a court-qualified use of force expert.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. McKenzie, 2022 MBCA 3 where a man was seen running while clenching the left side of his body with his elbow. When the officer called out to the man, the officer recognized him as a gang member. The man reacted by picking up his pace, leading the officer to suspect the man might have a weapon concealed between his left arm and his body. After a short foot pursuit, the officer pinned the man against a house and opened his fanny pack, seeing a handgun — which turned out to be loaded and stolen. Drugs and cash were also found in the man's jacket. Was the man's initial detention for a weapon's offence lawful? Was opening the fanny pack — even before patting it down — reasonable? And what if the officer had more than one reason for the search — to look for drugs or a weapon? Would a dual purpose render what the officer did in this case unreasonable? Trial court ruling Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Episode 315: Barbara Gayle Stoppel, a 16-year-old waitress, was tragically murdered on December 23, 1981, in the women's washroom of Ideal Donut Shop in Winnipeg, Manitoba. She was strangled with a twine, and despite being found alive, she succumbed to her injuries after six days on life support. The murder case quickly became notorious not only due to its brutal nature but also because of the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophonow, who was initially accused of the crime. Sophonow underwent three separate trials: the first ended with a hung jury, and the second and third led to convictions ultimately overturned by the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a Crown appeal, leading to Sophonow's final acquittal. This case is frequently cited as a significant example of a miscarriage of justice involving flawed eyewitness identifications and police misconduct during the interrogation process. Despite Sophonow's exoneration, the actual perpetrator remained at large until a re-investigation of the case pointed to another suspect, Terry Arnold, who was already known to police for similar offences, having left a trail of depravity, sexual assaults and suspected murder in his wake. This revelation came too late to be pursued thoroughly, as Arnold died by suicide in 2005. The impact of this case has been profound, leading to public scrutiny over police procedures and the reliability of eyewitness testimony. It has also been the subject of several books and a public inquiry which sought to prevent such injustices in the future. Sources: barbstoppel.com Thomas Sophonow | Innocence Canada City of Winnipeg 1984 CanLII 2912 (MB CA) | R. v. Sophonow | CanLII 1984 CanLII 3811 (MB CA) | R. v. Sophonow (No.1) | CanLII 1986 CanLII 104 (MB CA) | R. v. Sophonow (No.2) | CanLII 1999 CanLII 6576 (BC SC) | R. v. Arnold | CanLII 2001 BCCA 374 (CanLII) | R. v. Arnold | CanLII 2005 BCCA 611 (CanLII) | R. v. Arnold | CanLII Body of suspect in Winnipeg killing found in Victoria Drifter Thomas Sophonow Inquiry Letter of Apology to Tom Sophonow 1bpm85fqb_903420 Stoppel Exclusive: Thirty years later, survivor details encounter with serial killer Terry Arnold Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Devos, 2024 MBCA 23 where police made a demand for breath samples following a single vehicle rollover where a 15-year-old passenger was killed. Did the officer have the required reasonable grounds for the breathalyzer demand? And what happens when judges don't see all of the facts the same way? Can evidence be reasonably subject to different interpretations? And would the officer's grounds stand up even when some of what the officer relied upon was discounted?  Check out the JIBC Police Academy — International Use of Force Expert Conference — April 23-26, 2024. Last chance to register is April 16.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

In this episode: Join David for in depth discussion of Bill C-14.  Why have the Liberals pushed it through without accepting any substantial amendments from the media or tech?  Why has the Government NOT accepted the Globe and Mail's amendment to protect the news room content and sources C-18: Why is it a Liberal Trudeau backfire?C-18: Is it a HUGE Liberal blunder?C-18: Is it something else?Trudeau Govt continues to pursue the CSIS whistleblowerREAD my articles: ⁠The Post Millennial: RCMP allegedly grills Saskatchewan high school students over 'straight and proud' poster. ⁠"The principal allegedly had an RCMP officer brought in to question some of these kids without parents there." ⁠The Post Millennial: Manitoba Court of Appeal says church lockdowns did not violate Canadian Charter of Rights.⁠The Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled that several Canadian Christian churches did not have their Constitutional rights violated by Covid-19 mandates. ---BEAT Trudeau's censorship like, subscribe & hit the bell for notifications on my YouTube Channel: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@KraydensRightwithDavidKrayden⁠NEW!! You can now find Stand on Guard with David Krayden on most podcasts: Apple, Spotify, Google, Amazon, Youtube music, Substack.

Episode 254: On Saturday, June 23, 1990, three teenagers, Brigitte Grenier, 16, Kyle Unger, 19, and Timothy Houlahan, 17, all separately attended a music festival at a ski resort near Roseisle, Manitoba. The following morning, Brigette was discovered dead in a creek in a heavily forested area within the resort. She'd been sexually assaulted, beaten, tortured and strangled to death. As both had been seen with the victim during the hours before her death, police quickly targeted Kyle Unger and Timothy Houlahan as suspects in Brigette's slaying.  Forensic evidence pointed to Houlahan, and he, in turn, pointed to Kyle Unger as Brigette's murderer, but Kyle was adamant he'd had nothing to do with Brigette's death. The physical evidence against Kyle Unger was a single strand of hair found on Brigette's sweatshirt. RCMP needed more, so they turned to their tried and true Mr. Big technique and, sure enough, acquired a confession from Kyle Unger. In February of 1992, both Unger and Houlahan were convicted of first-degree murder. Both appealed. Houlahan's appeal was successful, and in July 1993, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for him. Tim Houlahan completed suicide before his second trial. Kyle Unger's conviction was upheld. Did the justice system get it right? Unfortunately, we will see that it did not, at least not right away. Sources: Historic Sites of Manitoba: Roseisle Pioneer Monument (Roseisle, RM of Dufferin) 1992 CanLII 13202 (MB KB) | R. v. Unger (K.W.) and Houlahan (T.L.) | CanLII 1993 CanLII 4409 (MB CA) | R. v. Unger | CanLII Kyle Unger settles wrongful murder conviction | CBC News Kyle Unger — Innocence Canada Kyle Unger | News, Videos & Articles — Global News Real Justice: A Police Mr. Big Sting Goes Wrong: The Story of Kyle Unger by Richard Brignall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We discuss the Trudeau government's latest measures to forcibly confine returning Canadian travellers in hotels, and the Justice Centre's court action against these policies. We then tackle John's Post Millennial column where he uses the criteria from the Freedom House international index, and applies it to Canada during the 2020 pandemic. Spoiler Alert: Canada's freedom score drops significantly.Justice Centre Press Release, Feb 17, 2021: Justice Centre sues federal government for forcible confinement of travellersNational Post, Feb 16, 2021: Welcome to hotel of last resort, the government-run quarantine you really want to leaveJustice Centre Press Release, Feb 17, 2021: Manitoba Court to hear challenge to broad, unconstitutional powers of Provincial Health OfficerJohn Carpay in The Post Millennial, Feb 16, 2021: Canada is at risk of joining the world's most repressive regimes in intolerance for free speechThe Guardian, Feb 12, 2021: Cuomo faces calls to resign amid allegations of hiding nursing home Covid deathsNPR, Nov 21, 2020: Andrew Cuomo To Receive International Emmy For 'Masterful' COVID-19 BriefingsJustice Centre Press Release, Feb 17, 2021: Alberta Premier asked to release jailed pastor, end religious persecutionCanadian Press via MSN, Feb 16, 2021: Racialized adults on revised federal COVID-19 vaccination priority listNational Advisory Committee on Immunization Statement, Feb 15, 2021: Guidance on the prioritization of key populations for COVID-19 immunizationBMJ Global Health, Vol 6 Issue 1: Navigating inequities: a roadmap out of the pandemicGlobal News, Dec 1, 2020: Vaccine advisory committee recommends new ranked roll-out, with long-term care at topTheme Music  "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show (https://www.jccf.ca/donate/)

We start off by reading some very sad correspondence the Justice Centre has received from people who are suffering severely under the government lockdowns. We then cover our court action to end the lockdown in Manitoba, and then discuss a politically incorrect column that was spiked in Canadian Lawyer Magazine about pronoun usage in courtrooms. We conclude with an update on Trudeau's "hotel prisons" in which Canadians continue to suffer forcible confinement.Justice Centre: Current COVID-19 Lockdown StoriesJustice Centre News Release, Feb 9, 2021: Manitoba Court to hear challenge to broad, unconstitutional powers of Provincial Health OfficerArchive Today: Shahdin Farsai in Canadian Lawyer Magazine: British Columbia's practice directions on preferred gender pronouns in court are problematicTim Wilbur, editor-in-chief--Law, in Canadian Lawyer Magazine, Feb 7, 2021: Statement regarding a recent opinion posted on our websiteBruce Pardy in the National Post via The Justice Centre, Feb 9, 2021: B.C. courts asking for ‘correct pronouns' is state-mandated identity politicsSayeh Hassan in The Epoch Times, Feb 8, 2021: Lockdown Measures Are Hurting Churches, CongregantsNational Post, Feb 9, 2021: RCMP charge Alberta pastor after Sunday church services violate COVID-19 rulesJustice Centre News Release, Feb 5, 2021: Federal government delays plan to forcibly confine travellers after public backlash and threat of litigationTheme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show (https://www.jccf.ca/donate/)

Children can’t be forced to pray in school, Manitoba court rules. In 1986, Chris Tait was given a week’s suspension at Macgregor High School in Manitoba for refusing to stand during the Lord’s Prayer. That prompted a court case that eventually led to an August 13, 1992 ruling by the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench that it is unconstitutional to make prayers mandatory in public schools. At the time, only Manitoba and British Columbia still required prayers in public schools, and an Ontario Court of Appeal decision had recently produced similar results. As part of the Manitoba ruling, Justice Monnin struck down the section of Manitoba’s Public Schools Act that contravened section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms relating to freedom of conscience and religion. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Supreme Court of Canada declares sexual harassment a form of sex discrimination.When Dianna Janzen and Tracy Govereau worked at Pharos restaurant in Winnipeg the fall of 1982, they endured outrageous physical and verbal sexual harassment from the cook, Tommy Grammas. Each of the women spoke at different times to the owner operator, Phillip Anastasiadis, about Tommy’s behaviour, but to no avail. Janzen left the restaurant after only two months; Govereau was fired. When both women complained to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, an adjudicator found the women had been sexually harassed, and awarded them money for lost wages and exemplary damages. The case’s first appeal reduced the financial award. At its next appearance at the Manitoba Court of Appeal, the judges threw it out altogether, saying sexual harassment is not sexual discrimination. However, on May 4, 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the adjudicator’s initial decision in favour of Janzen and Govereau, ruling in strong language that sexual harassment is clearly a form of sex discrimination. The court also delivered a very liberal definition of sexual harassment for Canadian employers and employees; it is used as the benchmark to this day. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Supreme Court of Canada allows battered-woman syndrome as a murder defence.In the early hours of August 31, 1986, Winnipeg citizen Angelique Lyn Lavallee shot and killed her common-law partner, Kevin Rust, in the back of the head. Lavallee, age 22, had been in an abusive relationship with Rust for years. During fights that lasted for days, he would beat her severely, necessitating numerous visits to the hospital for treatment. A jury acquitted her of murder, but the Manitoba Court of Appeal requested a new trial, saying that the defence’s “battered woman syndrome” testimony should not have been allowed. The phrase refers to a condition of “learned helplessness,” in which a woman has lost control of her environment and is unable to defend herself. On May 3, 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Lavallee’s acquittal, formally allowing the controversial syndrome as a defence for the first time. Although Lavallee shot Rust as he was leaving the room, the court and jury accepted the argument that she thought he would kill her later, and therefore felt that doing so was her only defence against him. Women’s organizations hailed the decision as a step forward in supporting women’s right to be free of violence, but others worried it might be misused, allowing some women to get away with killing their spouses. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Manitoba top court rules that English-only laws are unconstitutional.In 1976, Georges Forest was issued a parking ticket in Winnipeg, Manitoba and fined $5. Instead of paying this, he challenged the ticket with documentation in French, and thus began one of Canada’s most contentious debates on the rights of French language outside of Quebec. On April 25, 1979, the Manitoba Court of Appeal agreed with Forest that Manitoba’s English-only aspect of the 1890 Official Languages Act was unconstitutional, as it conflicted with Manitoba’s constitutional guarantees of allowing both French and English in the courts and legislature. The Manitoba Act also stated that all statutes must be printed in both French and English. While the court was unwilling to invalidate all of Manitoba’s laws, which would throw the province into chaos, it did ask the Manitoba government to fix the problem. Years later the NDP government began negotiations with the province’s Francophone community to make Manitoba Canada’s second officially bilingual province. Many Manitobans reacted with outrage and protests. The official Opposition, Progressive Conservatives, walked out of the legislature, grinding all legislative activity to a halt. The government eventually backed down, and in 1985, when Canada’s Supreme Court agreed with the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision, the province began the long process of translating all laws into French. Today all laws in Manitoba are published in both official languages and the province has greatly expanded its services in French. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Hull on Estates, Jonathon Kappy and Nick Esterbauer discuss the recent decision of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in Garwood v. Garwood Estate, 2016 MBQB 113, 19 E.T.R. (4th) 55, which raises issues of knowledge and approval, suspicious circumstances, and shifting evidentiary presumptions within the context of a will challenge.