Samuel Jeffery Kirwin

The applicant sought damages under s. 79 of the Drainage Act for alleged flooding losses to farmland and buildings said to result from the municipalities' failure to maintain the St. John's Marsh Drain.

The court held that s. 79 creates a strict-liability statutory cause of action, but damages remain subject to proof of physical injury or harm to property, but-for causation, remoteness, and the statutory notice regime.

On the evidence, the property had no de facto or legal outlet access to the drain, and the flooding was caused by natural flows from lands south of the road and insufficient outlet capacity through adjacent conservation lands, not by non-repair of the drain.

The applicant also failed to prove quantum for crop losses and advanced other claims that were too remote, constituted betterment, were unsupported, or were procedurally out of time.

The action was dismissed, with costs to be addressed by written submissions if necessary.

The defendant, the surviving spouse of the deceased, brought a motion to extend the limitation period to file a spousal election for an equalization payment under section 6(1) of the Family Law Act.

The plaintiff, the deceased's brother and purported executor, opposed the extension.

The court applied the three-part test under section 2(8) of the Family Law Act and found that there were apparent grounds for relief, the delay was incurred in good faith due to reliance on a prior consent, and no substantial prejudice would result.

The motion was granted, allowing the defendant 60 days to file the election.

The defendant, Safther Akram, brought a motion to extend the limitation period for filing a spousal election for an equalization payment under section 6(1) of the Family Law Act.

The plaintiff, Carlo Castiglione (Maria's brother and purported executor), opposed, arguing that his counsel's prior consent to an extension was unauthorized.

The court granted the extension, finding that Safther met the three-part test under section 2(8) of the Act: there were apparent grounds for relief, the delay was incurred in good faith (relying on a formal consent), and no substantial prejudice would be suffered by the estate or the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured when she lost control of her vehicle on a snow-covered and icy municipal road, crossing the centre line and colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for failing to keep the road in a reasonable state of repair.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the municipality was in the midst of a winter weather event but failed to adequately treat the road, leaving it unplowed and subject to refreezing for several hours.

The court held that the road was in a state of non-repair, which caused the collision, and that the municipality failed to establish any statutory defences under the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff was found not to be contributorily negligent, and the municipality was held fully liable for the agreed-upon damages.