Malcolm C. Kronby

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the characterization of funds from a non-competition agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that money paid and to be paid under the non-competition agreement constitutes property for the purposes of establishing the appellant's net family property.

The mother and two children travelled from Greece to Ontario for a vacation.

The mother subsequently decided to remain in Ontario and commenced a custody application.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the children to Greece, their habitual residence.

The mother argued that the father had consented to or acquiesced in the children's retention in Ontario under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention.

The applications judge found that the father had not consented or acquiesced, and ordered the children returned to Greece.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal, affirming that acquiescence requires clear and cogent evidence of unequivocal subjective consent, which was not established on the facts.

On a chambers motion arising from a family appeal, the court granted a stay of the underlying judgment pending the hearing of the appeal.

The stay was made subject to strict conditions, including prompt perfection, expedited hearing, interim unsupervised access for one week per month in the Greater Toronto Area, and release of $17,000 from joint securities to the respondent wife.

Costs of the application were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appeal concerned whether an Ontario court had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to make and later vary spousal support orders following a foreign divorce.

The court held that the 1990 consent order increasing spousal support was made without jurisdiction because only the court that granted the divorce could then grant corollary relief under s. 4, and the parties' consent could not cure that defect.

It further held that the 1998 variation order was also without jurisdiction because a null order cannot be varied and Canadian courts have no jurisdiction under the Act to vary foreign support orders.

The appeal was allowed, the variation order was set aside insofar as it related to spousal support, and no costs were awarded.

The appeal concerned whether the Family Law Act, 1986 displaced the remedial constructive trust in matrimonial property disputes between married spouses.

The majority held that the Act does not abolish constructive trust, but incorporates it into the first stage of ownership determination before equalization of net family property.

On the facts, the respondent's substantial labour and business contributions supported a beneficial half-interest in certain farm properties, allowing participation in post-separation appreciation.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding that the statutory equalization scheme provided an adequate remedy and made constructive trust unnecessary.