Borins J.A.

The parties lived in a common law relationship for seven years, during which the respondent performed extensive maintenance and renovation work on properties owned by the appellant.

After separation, the trial judge awarded the respondent compensation for unjust enrichment regarding one property and a 50 percent resulting trust interest in the profits from the sale of another property based on a joint venture agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, but varied the prejudgment interest calculation for the resulting trust property to run from the date of its sale.

The appellants brought a motion to review an order requiring them to post security for costs.

They argued the motion judge misapprehended evidence regarding the corporate appellant's indebtedness and asset valuation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on the public record and financial statements over unconfirmed assertions and a late-produced tax bill.

The appellants were ordered to post security for costs within thirty days.

The youth appellants were convicted of armed robbery and related offences.

At trial, the judge admitted hearsay statements from a victim and a co-accused under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's reliability analysis for the hearsay statements.

However, the sentence appeals were allowed.

The trial judge erred by considering general deterrence, which is not a principle of youth sentencing.

Given the passage of time and fresh evidence of the appellants' successful rehabilitation, the court reduced their sentences to periods of open custody and community supervision.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in allowing a bank employee to testify to facts referred to in a 1994 letter and that the jury charge contained errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary ruling based on past recollection recorded or refreshing memory.

Furthermore, the hearsay concerns were moot because defence counsel had agreed to admit the evidence for its truth for tactical reasons.

The court also found the jury charge to be balanced and fair.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and that the failure to obtain a vaginal sample from the complainant constituted unacceptable negligence under the Bero analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of the evidence and upholding the trial judge's finding that the failure to collect the sample was not unacceptable negligence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.