Lawrence S. Crackower

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, contribution to section 7 expenses, and a non-dissipation order.

The court found a significant disparity in the evidence regarding the respondent's income and imputed his income at $300,000 for interim purposes.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child support of $2,373 per month, interim spousal support of $8,894 per month, and outstanding section 7 expenses for private school tuition and orthodontistry.

The court also granted a non-dissipation order prohibiting the respondent from disposing of properties and requiring him to preserve assets.

The appellant mother appealed an order requiring the return of her two children to Israel pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The mother had wrongfully detained the children in Ontario after obtaining permission from an Israeli court to take them to Czechoslovakia for a temporary visit.

The mother argued that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm and that their refugee claim should stay the Convention proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother failed to establish the Article 13 exceptions and that the Convention proceedings should not be stayed pending the refugee claim.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and time-limited spousal support.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the net payment ordered by the trial judge was under $25,000, despite the amount in dispute being much higher.

On the merits, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's property division was supported by evidence and that time-limited spousal support was appropriate given the husband's failure to rehabilitate himself and his persistent prescription drug abuse.

The appellant appealed a summary trial judgment ordering the return of a $20,000 condominium deposit to the respondent.

The trial judge had found the respondent mentally incompetent to enter the agreement of purchase and sale based solely on a medical report from her psychiatrist.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding that the medical report was improperly admitted into evidence because it was not supported by an affidavit nor filed in compliance with section 52 of the Evidence Act, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee for refusing to work on Saturdays.

The Board found no evidence of violations under sections 58 or 61.

However, the Board determined that the employee had a long-standing privilege of not working on Saturdays, which the employer altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period following certification.

The Board held that the employer violated section 70 of the Act and ordered the employee's reinstatement with full compensation.