André

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring him to pay spousal support of $1,200 per month for eight years.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding entitlement, failing to impute income to the respondent, and determining the quantum and duration of support.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no material error or misapprehension of evidence.

The trial judge properly considered the significant income disparity, the respondent's diligent job search efforts, and the factors under section 30 of the Family Law Act, and the award fell within the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant security company after allegedly being struck by a bouncer.

At a status hearing, the defendant requested that the action be dismissed for delay.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, which was largely caused by the defendant's desire to locate a third party before scheduling examinations for discovery.

The court also found that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The request to dismiss the action was denied, a timetable was set, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The offender was convicted of three counts of robbery and three counts of using an imitation firearm during a robbery.

The Crown sought to prove a real firearm was used, but the court found it was an imitation firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the victims and the impact on them, and mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and impending deportation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of five years imprisonment, less 28 months credit for pretrial custody.

The accused was charged with six offences relating to three armed robberies committed at bus stops in Brampton and Mississauga within a one-hour period.

The robber used an imitation handgun to steal cellphones and bus tickets, fleeing in a van.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification, similar fact evidence, DNA found on a baseball cap in the getaway van, and the accused's subsequent sale of the stolen cellphones.

The court admitted the similar fact evidence, finding the robberies strikingly similar.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unworthy of belief and found that the cumulative evidence proved his identity as the robber beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of all charges.

The offender was convicted of defrauding a fellow church member of $23,643 under the guise of an investment scheme.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized the planning involved, the vulnerability of the victim, and the lack of recovery or remorse.

The offender was sentenced to 45 days of intermittent custody, followed by 18 months of probation, and ordered to pay full restitution.