Eva Janta

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support, and an adjournment due to alleged misleading financial disclosure by the respondent father.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and argued the motion's scope was limited to retroactive spousal support.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding no dishonesty by the father regarding his financial disclosure.

The court also limited the motion's scope to retroactive spousal support, finding the broader claims unsuitable for a one-hour motion.

Applying the DBS framework for retroactive support, the court found that three of four factors did not favour the applicant, particularly regarding her delay in seeking support and insufficient efforts towards self-sufficiency.

Consequently, the claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed.

The court did order ongoing and retroactive child support based on the father's agreement.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant opposed, seeking to buy out the respondent's share and arguing that financial disclosure was delayed.

The court found that the respondent's pleading was sufficient to invoke the Partition Act.

While acknowledging the respondent's prima facie right to sale, the court delayed the sale to allow the applicant time to secure financing for a buyout, given the recent receipt of financial disclosure and the children's best interests.

If financing is not secured by a set date, the home must be listed for sale.

The accused, Brenda Catherine Dufort, was charged with importing approximately two kilograms of cocaine from Trinidad into Canada.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the requisite knowledge or was wilfully blind to the presence of the narcotics.

The defence argued she believed she was transporting currency.

The court examined text messages between the accused and a friend, which revealed discussions about drug exportation and the accused's direct involvement in such activities.

The court found the accused's explanations for these messages to be incredible and her credibility significantly undermined.

Based on the evidence, including the high value of the substance and the accused's deliberate failure to inquire despite suspicious circumstances, the court concluded that the accused either had actual knowledge or was wilfully blind.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty of the offence charged.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a W.D. analysis, providing insufficient reasons regarding self-defence, and failing to impose a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, faithfully applied the substance of W.D. principles, and reasonably concluded that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest given the violent nature of the assault and the need for general deterrence.