A majority of the court found nothing wrong with a military court judge's conclusion that the accused had applied more force than necessary in defending his property and dismissed the accused's conviction appeal in R. v. Szczerbaniwicz, 2010 SCC 15. The accused, who pushed and injured his wife when she threw his mounted diploma on the floor, had argued that he was not criminally responsible for the assault because he used "no more force than was necessary" (s.39 (1) CCC) to protect his property (the diploma). The military judge concluded that the accused lost his self-control for a short period of time during which he "physically manhandled" his spouse, causing her to fall and suffer injuries. The Supreme Court agreed with his conclusion that the use of force in such circumstances was disproportionate. As noted in the following article, however, the minority found the trial judge's reasons to be inadequate. 

• The Defence of Property in Criminal Law: R. v. Szczerbaniwicz by Christine Kellowan, posted May 10, 2010 on The Court.

R. v. Laboucan, 2010 SCC 12 and R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions, stem from the same Alberta incident, the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl by the two accused (L and B) and three youths. In Laboucan, the Crown successfully appealed the Court of Appeal decision that a new trial was necessary because the trial judge's reference to L's "very great motive to be untruthful" presumed his guilt.  The Supreme Court found that "while some of the language used by the trial judge in his reasons may give cause for concern when viewed in isolation, when the reasons are read in their entirety and in the light of the context of the trial as a whole, they reveal that the trial judge properly assessed and weighed the evidence of all the witnesses, including the accused, without undermining the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof." In Briscoe, the court upheld the Court of Appeal decision to overturn B's acquittal and order a new trial due to the trial judge's failure to consider the doctrine of wilful blindness. The court also looks at the mens rea requirements for party offences, as discussed in the article Prosecutorial Pragmatism in R. v. Briscoe, by Allison MacIsaac, posted May 6, 2010 on The Court.

Jeffrey Cansanay has been found guilty of the second degree murder of an innocent bystander three years after he was acquitted on the same charges when the trial judge refused to admit the videotaped statements of uncooperative witnesses. His case has generated many reported decisions by all levels of court. Rulings arising from the most recent trial include:

• 2010 MBQB 48 - a ruling on challenges for cause relating to pre-trial publicity and allegations that the offences are gang related;
  

• 2010 MBQB 59 - the court grants a publication ban for the duration of the trial sought by Crown and supported by defence;
  

• 2010 MBQB 79 - a ruling on the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by Crown witnesses;

• 2010 MBQB 81 - a ruling regarding the admissibility of the evidence of a deceased Crown witness - evidence from first trial held admissible, but not evidence from co-accused's trial or police statements;

• 2010 MBQB 86 - dismissal of motion for mistrial based on Crown counsel revealing the outcome of co-accused's trial;

• 2010 MBQB 92 - the court rules that there in no air of reality to the defence of self-defence.

The Manitoba government introduced Bill 13, The Civil Remedies Against Organized Crime Amendment Act, on March 25, 2010. It transfers applications currently brought by the police chief to the newly created position of director and sets out the powers and responsibilities of the director.

The most recent issue of Juristat, the Statistics Canada periodical on Canada's justice system, contains three articles that may interest criminal lawyers:

• Knives and violent crime in Canada, 2008;

• Youth custody and community services in Canada, 2008/2009;
  

• Police-reported robbery in Canada, 2008.

In Post-Grant: Does It Even Matter? author Benjy Radcliffe examines how appellate courts (including the MBQB in R. v. Watt, 2009 MBQB 297), have applied the new s. 24(2) framework for exclusion of evidence set out in last summer's Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Grant. He considers only appellate decisions involving the application of both the old and new tests, and concludes that courts appear to be increasingly willing to admit evidence post-Grant.

The Criminal Law section of the Manitoba Bar Association invites members and buddies to attend their next meeting, at which Crown counsel Diana Cameron will review the Top S.C.C. criminal cases for 2009-2010. The meeting takes place May 20, 2010 at 12:00 noon, 12th floor, Woodsworth Building, 405 Broadway.

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada is presenting its 37th annual National Criminal Law Program, Substantive Criminal Law, Advocacy and the Administration of Justice, from July 12 to 16, in St. John's, Newfoundland.  As noted in the brochure, Richard Saull of Manitoba Justice is a faculty member and will present a lecture on The "Defence" of Third Party Suspects and Inadequate Police Investigation.

The Federal government introduced Bill C-23, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, on May 11, 2010. It amends the Criminal Records Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-47 to substitute the term "record suspension" for the term "pardon" and extends the ineligibility periods for record suspension applications. It also makes certain offences ineligible for a suspension.