Eric Gerard Raymond Lavictoire

The accused, Matthew Picanco, was sentenced for simple assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The court identified several aggravating circumstances, including the accused's underlying bias and racist attitudes towards the complainants (international students and persons of colour), his lack of remorse and insight into his offending conduct, and his failure to comply with pre-sentence report appointments.

The assault causing bodily harm resulted in a serious facial fracture.

The Crown sought a 14-18 month jail sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight months in real jail, followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and non-contact orders with the victims.

This costs decision followed a five-day trial concerning unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and unpaid monies.

The applicant, Danielle Belair, sought over $100,000, while the respondent, Marcel Bourgon, pursued over $76,000.

The trial judge awarded Ms. Belair a nominal amount of $818.64 and dismissed all other claims.

Considering the parties' conduct and Mr. Bourgon's reasonable settlement offers, which were significantly better than the trial outcome for Ms. Belair, the court fixed costs at $75,673.85, payable by Ms. Belair to Mr. Bourgon.

The appellant, a lawyer, sought leave to appeal a costs decision that dismissed his claim for costs against his former clients.

The motion judge found that the appellant breached section 28 of the Solicitors' Act by acquiring his clients' interest in their action, rendering the agreement void ab initio.

The court dismissed the leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court affirmed the motion judge's proper exercise of discretion under the Courts of Justice Act, citing the unfair and prohibited nature of the agreement, the lawyer's inability to acquire a right of subrogation, and breaches of Contingency Fee Agreement Regulations, as well as the lawyer's conflict of interest.

The applicant brought a family law motion addressing child support, arrears, section 7 expenses, access-related travel costs, life insurance security for support obligations, and an alleged alcohol restriction during access.

The court set ongoing child support according to the applicable Child Support Guidelines table amount based on the respondent’s income and rejected the respondent’s request to reduce support due to travel expenses incurred to exercise access.

However, the court ordered a limited contribution from the applicant toward the respondent’s access travel costs, payable per visit and not as a set-off against child support.

The court confirmed significant child support arrears due to the respondent’s failure to disclose income annually as required by a prior order and ordered repayment by monthly instalments.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionally to income, and the respondent was required to designate the applicant as life insurance trustee for the children.

The requested alcohol ban during access was declined for lack of evidence.

Both parties brought competing motions to change the child support provisions of a 2001 divorce order.

The applicant sought increased and retroactive child support based on the respondent’s increased income and requested contribution toward special expenses including orthodontics and competitive soccer.

The respondent sought termination or reduction of support due to unemployment.

The court found material changes in circumstances, attributed income reflecting severance and employment insurance, and varied support prospectively from the date of effective notice rather than the earlier period sought.

The court also determined that competitive soccer constituted a s.7 special expense and ordered a limited contribution.