COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000529

DOCKET: C32274

RE: SEBASTIAN PAUL HURWITZ (Applicant (in Ontario Court
(Provincial Divison))/Respondent) v. GAIL BARBER (Respondent
in Ontario Court (Provincial Division)/Appellant)

BEFORE: LABROSSE, LASKIN and MOLDAVER JJ.A.

COUNSEL: J. W. Neeb, Q.C. and Shelly Harper,
for the appellant

Sebastian Paul Hurwitz, the respondent, in person

HEARD: May 26, 2000

On appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice E. R. Kruzick dated
May 14, 1999

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant appeals from the judgment of Kruzick J.
dismissing her appeal from the judgment of Judge LeDressay (the
"trial judge"). The trial judge awarded unsupervised access to
the respondent, found the appellant in contempt and awarded costs
against her.

[2] Kruzick J. found that the trial judge had made no error. We
agree.

[3] Following a seventeen-day trial, the trial judge carefully
reviewed the evidence, made findings of fact which are amply
supported by the evidence and applied the relevant legal
principles. He also properly exercised his discretion with
respect to costs.

[4] We see no merit in this appeal. It is a further attempt to
re-try the case.

[5] We therefore dismiss the appeal in all respects.

[6] With respect to the cross-appeal, we see no reason to
interfere with the orders that have been made relating to costs.
The other issues raised by the respondent are not appropriate
matters to be decided by this court. They can be best dealt with
in the Ontario Court on proper application.

[7] We note that the appellant has not obtained a stay of the
existing access order, which has not been complied with pending
appeal. We find this situation shocking and, apart from possibly
amounting to contempt, it is, in our view, detrimental to the
best interests of the child as found by the trial judge.

(signed) "J. M. Labrosse J.A."
(signed) "John Lasken J.A."
(signed) "M. J. Moldaver J.A."