Keshav Rai Agnihotri

The court considered a motion by the Applicant, Crystel Figaro, to compel financial disclosure from the Respondent, Shawn Figaro, and to adjourn a scheduled hearing regarding the validity of a separation agreement.

The Applicant argued that the agreement was entered into without full financial disclosure or independent legal advice.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the necessity of full disclosure in family law and finding that the Respondent had failed to provide adequate information.

The hearing was adjourned, and the Respondent was ordered to provide full answers to the Applicant’s request for information.

The plaintiff's property experienced flooding and damage due to storm sewer installation by the defendant City in 2002.

The plaintiff commenced an action in 2021, alleging negligence.

The City brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by both the ultimate 15-year limitation period and the two-year basic limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the claim was based on a singular act of negligence in 2002, not a continuous act, and that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to commence proceedings well before the two-year period expired.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding it statute-barred.

The appellant was convicted by jury of sexual assault and touching a person under the age of 16 for a sexual purpose against his stepdaughter.

The trial judge imposed a four-year sentence on the sexual touching count and stayed the sexual assault conviction.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence on four grounds: the prejudicial effect of evidence regarding the complainant's mother's conviction for invitation to sexual touching; errors in the trial judge's ruling on a third-party records application; errors in the jury charge; and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the grounds raised.

The Crown applied under the Civil Remedies Act for the civil forfeiture of a rural property, alleging it was used as an instrument of unlawful activity after police discovered 723 alleged marijuana plants on the premises.

The property owner opposed the application, arguing he had no knowledge of the grow operation and was a responsible owner.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the Crown failed to prove the seized plants were actually marijuana, as no Health Canada certificate was provided.

Furthermore, the court held that the owner met the burden of proving he was a responsible owner and that forfeiture would clearly not be in the interests of justice.